tee 
eee | 
7 ¢ The University of Chicago 


FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 


NOTES ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE 
SARGONID PERIOD 


PART OF A DISSERTATION 
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


(DEPARTMENT OF SEMITICS) 


BY 
ALLEN HOWARD GODBEY 


CHICAGO 
1906 


fe 


mwrEgeyyy 


Kee 


DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 


The University of Chicago 


FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER 


NOTES ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE 
SARGONID PERIOD 


PART OF A DISSERTATION 
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS 
AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE 
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 


(DEPARTMENT OF SEMITICS) 


BY 
ALLEN HOWARD GODBEY 


CHICAGO 
1906 


aa 


Vy 


PRINTED AT THE UN 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


ABC. = Stevenson, Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts. 

ABLCL. =Johns, Assyrian and Babylonian Laws, Contracts, and Letters. 
ABPR. =Meissner, Alt-Babylonische Privatrecht. 

ADD.’ =ZJohns, Assyrian Deeds and Documents. 

AJSL. = American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. 
AKA. = Budge and King, Annals of the Kings of Assyria, Vol. I. 

AL. =S.A. Smith, Assyrian Letters. 

AOF. = Winckler, Alt-Orientalische Forschungen. 

BAS. = Beitrdge zur Assyriologie. 

Br. = Brinnow, A Classified List. 

CH. = RFHarper, The Code of Hammurabi. 

DB, = Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible. 

DES. = Thompson, Devils and Evil Spirits of Assyria and Babylonia. 
EAH. =E. A. Hoffman Collection in Radau’s HBH. 

EB. = Cheyne-Black, Encyclopedia Biblica. 

EBA. = Amiaud and Mechineau, L’Ecriture babylonienne et assyrienne. 
EBH. = Radau, Harly Babylonian History. 

HABL. =RFHarper, Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. 

HWB. =Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwérterbuch. 

JAOS. = Journal of the American Oriental Society. 

JEL. = Johnston, Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians. 
JRAS. = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 

LI. = King, Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi. 

IS. = Lehmann, Samas-sum-ukin. 

MVAG. =WMittheilungen der Vorder-Asiatischen Gesellschaft. 

OBI, = Hilprecht, Old Babylonian Inscriptions. 

PEFSt. = Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement. 

PSBA. = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology. 

RMA. = Thompson, Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh. 
RS. = Robertson Smith, Religion of the Semites. 

SAS. Abp.=S. A. Smith, Die Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals. 

SSO. = Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins. 

Sirnbd. =Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabonids. 

Strnbk,. =Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, 

Sup. = Meissner, Supplement zu den assyrischen Worterbiichern. 
TSBA. =Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archeology. 

ZA, = Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie. 


- Digitized by the ae me 
https://archive.org/details/notesonsomeoffic01g 


NOTES ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE 
SARGONID PERIOD. 


(Revised from American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 
January, 1905, and October, 1905.) 


It is not to be expected that any exhaustive treatment of this 
subject can be achieved for years to come. C. H. W. Johns, in 
his Assyrian Deeds and Documents, has shown us one field from 
which much information may be derived, and has done excellent 
pioneer work in Assyrian official antiquities. It is the present 
purpose to render more available for the general student the rich 
material in R. F. Harper’s Assyrian and Babylonian Letters. 
The accompanying index is intended to give a list of all the 
various officials, tradesmen, and men of sacred and learned pro- 
fessions, that are mentioned in the eight volumes of letters 
now published. It will be followed by excurstis upon different 
functionaries. 

The determinative prefix amélu is used throughout the letters 
with very great regularity. But few cases of its omission are 
noticeable. A rab-so-and-so may sometimes be without it, as in 
the case of Abni, the rab BIR of the land of the city of Arpadda, 
in [221] K. 175, obv. 12. The term pikittu is also used in a 
way that leaves one a little uncertain whether or not some func- 
tionary is always meant. We have 2™¢! bél pikitte, as in 
[573] K. 1003, obvy. 7; bél pikitti [608] K. 1136, rv. 9; 
pikitte 8a bit mar-Sarri 8a kutalli, [658] 83-1-18, 81, 
oby. 9, 10. In the stereotyped formule of salutation, we have 

5 


6 Notes ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


ana ®™¢! pikitti 8a Bélit parsi Sulmu, in |12] K. 666, 
obv. 6, 7. The same without the *™®! occurs in [7] K. 601, 
oby. 4. I do not at present know any other term that affords so 
much cause for uncertainty. Its occurrence without any deter- 
minative prefix is frequent; yet in some of these places a 
functionary is certainly meant. There may be a few other words 
without any determinative prefix which really indicate officials; 
one cannot be pasitive on this point till every word occurring in 
the letters is certainly understood. 

It is not intended to include in this index gentilic names and 
adjectives. These belong rather to the geographical data afforded 
by the letters, which are being compiled by Mr. O. A. Toffteen. 
There are terms, of course, concerning which there may be a 
reasonable doubt; and it may be that some have been assigned to 
the geographical data that should have been included here. 

Also, it has been the intention to omit all occurrences of other 
words with the determinative prefix #™¢!" that do not promise 
anything of importance in relation to the general subject. The 
word sabé has been omitted from the list, being a purely general 
term, without any necessary implications of rank. For illustra- 
tion, we have in [631] K. 1265, oby. 9-13, Ya-ra-pa-a, rab 
ki-sir; Ha-tar-a-nu, rab ki-sir; Ga-na-bu, Ta-am-ra- 
nu; pubur 4 2™¢! gabé; yet two of the four are officers. 

It will be recognized, then, as advisable that a list should be 
given here indicating terms systematically excluded from the 
index. Besides the frequent ?™¢! sabé, we find #™¢! emiiki-ia 
or -8u, “aman of my or his troop,” e.g., [197] K. 181, obv. 11; 
amélu alone, for “a man” or “any man,” [55] K. 483, rv. 1, 4; 
amél-+u-tu for “mankind,” [128] K. 650, oby. 10; ?™¢! mar- 
Su= “the man his son,” [117] K. 991, rv. 12, 27°! ardu, |9] 
K. 618, oby. 14; #™*! nakru, or nakrati, “the enemy,” [340] 
Bu. 91-5-9, 183, obv. 21; #™*! tebié, “attacking forces,” [275] 
K. 82, obv. 17, rv. 12; #™&! bélé hitu, “leaders of rebellion,” 
[460] K. 1250, obv. 15; *™°! parrisu sa, “that liar,” [208] K. 
617, obv. 17; #™&! bél ibtallikani, ‘‘the leader of those who 
ravage,” [771] 83-1-18, 49, rv. 13; #™¢! liSaniSu, “a man of 
his speech,” [741] S. 807, obv. 5; 2™¢! mukinnika, “thy sup- 
porter,” | 416] 80—7-19, 19, obv. 6; 2™¢! kinatatikunu, similar 
to preceding, [37] K. 1039, obv. 7; #™¢! ra’mani, “(those men 
are not) lovers (of the king my lord),” [277] K. 1066, rv. 8; 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 7 


amél 7i’rani, “haters,” [210] K. 647, rv. 9; ®™°! bel dini’a, 
“my adversary, prosecutor,” [416] 80-7-19, 19, obv. 7; 2™mél 
babtate, ‘plunderers,” [839] 83-1-18, 21, obv. 16; 2™*! hubtu, 
“prisoner, captive,” [280] K. 10, obv. 10; 2™¢! munnabitu, 
“fugitive,” [839] 83-1-18, 21, obv. 16; 2™*! bélé tabtia, “my 
allies, partisans,” [281] K. 13, obv. 12, 24; 2™°! haniu, is for 
anniu, [787] R™ 55, rv. 6; 2™¢! GIG, might be “sick man,” 
usually kadistu, [370] 81—-2-4, 49, obv. 14; #™@! mibir, [718] 
Bu. 91-5-9, 87, rv. 6; 2™°! mar-bant, [280] K. 10, obv. 16; 
amél kinnisu, etc., “a man of his family,” [542] K. 114, rv. 7; 
amat ékalli, ‘“‘a female slave of the palace,” [99] K. 5466, rv. 
13; all passages that merely express family relationships, such as 
“father,” “brother,” “sister,” etc.; 2™°! a, in a broken passage, 
[101] K. 561, rv. 11, perhaps stands for ‘‘son.” In a few passages 
there may be scribal errors; but this question is best deferred for 
the excursis. It is understood that the foregoing are but speci- 
men references; some of the phrases occur frequently. Their 
irrelevance to the proposed investigation will be recognized. 

Nor has it been deemed within the province of the index to 
correct the occasional scribal errors. It is preferred to give the 
reading as it stands, leaving corrections and comments for the 
excursis. Anyone will recognize that tur Sip-ia, [500] K. 
1303, obv. 10, is an error for tur Sip-ri-ia; ma-za-si pa-ni, 
[656] 82-5-22, 168, rv. 8, is the reading in the text for mazazi 
=manzazi. Tur me-Sa-ni occurs in [205] K. 5387, oby. 5. 
I suspect the Sa is a defective ra, and that we should read 
mar-Siprani. A.ri, however, for “courier,” does not seem to 
be an error, as one might at first suppose. It is listed by Briin- 
now, No. 11451. It occurs in #™¢! a.ri.ka, [208] K. 617, rv. 9. 
Scribal errors are, on the whole, rare in titular elements of the 
Letters. 

The references given are double: the first number, in brackets, 
being the number of the letter in Harper’s Assyrian and Baby- 
lonian Letters, while the second is the British Museum number. 
In the excursfis the Harper Letters are distinguished by a 
prefixed H. 

The order of the officials is that followed by Johns in Assyrian 
Deeds and Documents, so far as the data permit. It is hoped 
that this will facilitate the use of both sets of data by those who 
may take an interest in the subject. Yet many terms occur which 


8 Notes oN SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


are not discussed by Johns; these follow immediately after the 
others, and are arranged in alphabetical order. 

The present state of Assyriology leaves us in uncertainty about 
many terms and words. The last page or so of this index contains 
terms that are hapax legomena in the letters so far published; 
and their occurrence is of a character that renders it impossible 
to dogmatize. Frequently all preceding or subsequent connection 
is lost, and all that can be affirmed at present is that here are 
phrases to be examined: a few of them may not after all indicate 
officials or artisans. The compiler of the index has examined 
these places carefully, and decides that the phrases demand con- 
sideration from those interested in the official life of Assyria. It 
is not advisable to commit one’s self further now. 

The damaged character of many letters results in the frequent 
occurrence of the ?™¢! with the following characters missing. 
Here and there a restoration might be ventured from the connec- 
tion; but this has not been attempted in the index. Many are 
but partially effaced, and when the restoration of such seems 
safe, it has been given in the index, with properly bracketed 
parts. But many occur that do not suggest to me any known 
official, yet are comparatively little damaged. It has been 
deemed advisable to append an autographed page of these dam- 
aged words. 

It has not been deemed advisable to attempt any association 
or grouping of terms in the index, except where the facts are well 
established. The “messenger,” or ‘‘courier,” for instance, is 
indicated by a variety of phrases, already well known. But we 
may have in our data various terms for some other office; e. g., 
rab ali and bazanu might be interchangeable. It has been 
decided that the index should merely give the data, and leave the 
discussion of such points to the excursus. On the other hand, it 
is not intended that an excursus shall be limited in its discussions 
to the data given in this index. Any attempt to comprehend 
more clearly the institutions of ancient Assyria and Babylonia 
must consider something more than the epistolary literature. 
This work would be facilitated if similar compilations were acces- 
sible for other bodies of the cuneiform literature; and it is to be 
hoped such may be eventually available. As to the actual range 
of excurstis upon various functionaries, it is clear to any student 
of the cuneiform records that such may involve the whole field of 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 9 


Assyrian and Babylonian linguistic, scientific, historical, religious, 
civil, and social development. 

The custom, very generally followed hitherto, of indicating 
ideographic or Sumerian expressions by capitals has been aban- 
doned. While helpful to the young student, it does not seem 
necessary for those who are likely to avail themselves of this 
index. Each form of the term has been given in transliteration; 
the various spellings, and the occurrences with pronominal suffixes, 
that the lexicographers and grammarians may find their tasks facili- 
tated. But few of the functionaries are of a character that render 
possessive suffixes probable in the letters. The “courier” shows 
more variety of terms, and more occurrences with suffixes than 
any other; almost as many as all others combined; and I have 
questioned if this list were worth the space, since we already 
know what may be expected of the average courier or messenger. 

In the transliteration, effort has been made to indicate clearly 
how each spelling is written. The capital catch-word endeavors, 
where possible, to be phonetically accurate; in detailing the cita- 
tions, I have intended to suggest the syllables used. Thus, under 
amél Tta’a, the scribe has choice of two characters for the syl- 
lable tu: the ordinary ud, and the heavier tu, which I have 
uniformly marked tt, where occurring. 

A few other terms, fairly well understood, have been included 
in the index: such as parSumu, hialu, 5ébu, ummanu, 
agratu. Their occurrence is not frequent, and investigation 
produced reason to suspect a particular technical sense in some 
of them. 


amé1TU RTANU, TARTANU: #™¢ltur-tan, [205] K. 537, rv. 6, 
[571] K. 998, oby. 11; 2™6! tur-tan-nu, [682] K. 508, obvy.8; amél 
tur-tan-ni, [649] 81-24, 110, obv. 4, rv. 3, [373] 82-5-22, 99, obv. 
8, [428] 83-1-18, 25, rv. 2, [684] 80-7-19, 37, rv. 3; mel tur-ta-nu, 
[568] K. 956, rv. 13, [795] Bu. 91-5-9, 107, oby. 5; #™é! tur-ta-nu- 
Su, [197] K. 181, rv. 1, [492] 81-24, 60, oby. 8; 2™61 tur-ta-nu 
IT-u (=Sana), [144] K. 194, oby. 13; 2™¢1 tur-ta-ni, [71] K. 1113 
+K. 1229, oby. 10; 2™é6l tar-ta-nu, [393] 80-7-19, 25, rv. 8, [701] 
S. 1338, obv. 8. 

amé] NAGIRU: 2mél lagar, [281] K. 13, obv. 10, [576] K. 1009, obv. 9; 
amél lagar é-gal, [112] K. 485, obv. 1, [408] R™ 2, 1, rv. 27, [409] 
R™ 2, 2, oby. 2, [781] K. 823, rv.2; 2™6¢1 na-gi-ri, [521] 83-1-18, 
4, rv. 16; 2™@1nér é-gal, [373] 82-522, 99, obv. 10, [785] K. 13142, 
oby. 5, [253] K. 1175+1207, obv. 8 (2). 


10 Nores on Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


amé] BT. LUL: [322] K. 663, obv. 8; 2m¢lrab bi-lul, [194] K. 665, rv. 
4, [353] 82-5-22, 169, rv. 11, [373] 82-5-22, 99, obv. 12, [888] R™ 2, 
463, obv. 10, [585] K. 1098, oby. 3, [646] 79-7-8, 292, obv. 6; rab bi- 
lul, [659] Bu. 89-42-6, 17, obv. 6; 4™@lrab bi- .... , [767] 83-1- 
18, 75, obyv. 9. 

amél MU, (NUHATIMMU?): [43] K. 122, rv. 1,6, [322] K. 663, obv. 10; 
[754] K. 5457, obv. 18, [699] 81-2-4, 468, oby. 3(?); 2m¢l rab mu, 
[274] K. 81, obv. 19, [357] S. 1368, obv. 9, [555] K. 677, obv.5.... 
rab mu, [143] K. 584, obv. 11. 

amél RAB.SE.GAR, [408] R™ 2, 1, rv. 18. 

amé1 RAB.GAR.MES, [43] K. 122, rv. 2, 18. 

amé61SE.GAR, [43] K. 122, rv. 12. 

amél1 RAB SAKU: amélrab Sak, [64] K. 550, obv. 10, [95] K. 1151, 
obv. 6, [173] K. 686, oby. 5, [283] K. 597, obv. 1, [484] 81-7-27, 33, 
oby. 15, [568] K. 956, rv. 16, [709] 80-7-19, 67, oby. 3; 2mé@l rab 
Sa-ki-e, [353] 82-5-22, 169, rv. 9. 

amél1 PATAR PARZILLI: 4™é! gir-an-bar, [85] K. 613, rv. 7. 

amél ZAKKU: ameél zak-ku-u, [143] K. 584, obv. 6, [459] K. 1141, rv. 
3; amél za-ku-u, [311] K. 630, rv. 3, [633] K. 1366, obv. 17, [685] 
81-2-4, 96, obv. 4. 

(amé6l) TTU’A: amel]-tu-’-u, [138] K. 469, rv. 11; 2mé1 T-tu-u, [506] K. 
678, rv. 15; ame! T-tu~-’, [572] K. 1001, obv. 10, [685] 81-2-4, 96, rv. 
22; amél T-ta--a-a, [201] K. 690, obv. 5, [242] K. 11148, rv. 16, [388] 
R™ 2, 463, obv. 7, [419] 83-1-18, 24, obv. 10,12; amélI-ta,..... ; 
[147] K. 1170, rv. 5; amél T-ta-’-6, [506] K. 678, rv. 10; ame! T-tu- 
a-a, [424] S. 760, rv. 2,10; amél T-tu-’-a-a-e-a, [482] 82-5-22, 104, 
oby. 6; 2mé1 U-tu-’-a-a, [349] R™ 78, rv. 3. 

amél BA, [645] R™ 2, 464, rv. 4. 

amé!] SELAPPA, [471] 80-7-19, 41, obv. 17. 

amél PUR.KUL, [429] R™ 69, obv. 9, [531] 81-2-4, 50, rv. 13. 

amél BARU, amél BARUTU: 4mél hal [773] S. 152, oby. 7, [808] Bu. 
91-5-9, 113, rv. 6, [854] K. 1158, rv. 10, [391] 83-1-18, 2, oby. 18 (?); 
amél hal-mes, [33] K. 572, obv. 6; #6! hal-u-tu, [755] 83-1-18, 
122, rv. 18. 

amé] MASMASU: amél mas-ma8, [23] K. 602, obv. 21, [24] K. 626, 
obv. 11, 14, rv. 5, [167] K. 582, rv. 16, [361] 81-2-4, 58, rv. 10, [670] K. 12, 
ry. 10; 2mé6! mas-mas-mes, [1] K. 167, rv. 8, [83] K. 572, obv. 7, 
[118] K. 1026, rv. 5. 

amé] MAHHU: amél mah, [205] K. 537, rv. 4, [466] S. 51, rv. 4; emeél 
mah-me§, [90] K. 594, obv. 13, [205] K. 537, obv. 3, 14, rv. 1, [252] 
K. 525, obv. 4, rv. 13, [306] K. 622, oby. 3, 14, [680] 83-1-18, 63, obv. 
8; amél mah-meS-ni, [196] K. 125, obv. 8, 13, [252] K. 525, rv. 7, 15. 

amé1 MUKIL APPATE: 4mél mu-kil s* pa-mes, [65] K. 629, 
obv. 21, [211] K. 662, obv. 4, [445] K. 724, obv. 7, [568] K. 956, rv. 20, 
[611] KK. 1143, obw 25502) ees su pa-mes, [609] K. 1140, obv. 4, 
ry. 7; 2mél mu-kil s4 a-pa-a-ni, [633] K. 1366, rv. 21. 

amé1 MURIBBANU, [458] K. 1122, obv. 6. 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 11 


amé] RAi’U; amél sib, [639] K. 8390, obv. 10, [716] K. 31, rv. 9, [726] 
80-7-19, 24, obv. 7, 12, [727] 83-118, 67, obv. 7, [845] K. 671, obv. 10. 
amél sib-mes, [75] K. 546, obv. 9, [268] K. 514, obv. 11, rv. 6, 
[633] K. 1366, rv. 13, [639] K. 8390, rv. 1. 

amé] RAB.SIB.MES, [336] K. 644, rv. 5. 

amé1S$ A HUTARI, [445] K. 724, obv. 3. 

amél1 US.KIB.SI: 2mél ug kib-si-a-ni, [526] K. 628, rv. 2. 

amé1§A ELI ALI, [90] K. 594, rv. 13, [710] 81-2-4, 87, obv. 6; amél 
Sa mub-bi ali, [530] 80-7-19, 40, obv. 13. 

amé1 SA ELI BITI, [343] 83-1-18, 18, oby. 9; 2™6l Sa eli biti Sa 
bit-bal, [577] K. 1010, obv. 6; 2™é@l Sa eli bit-a-nu, [855] K. 

. 1226, obv. 1; 2™61 8a eli bit-a-ni, [568] K. 956, rv. 18. 

amé]1RAB KAKULATHE: 2™é@l rab ka-ku-la-te, [152] K. 1101+ 
K. 1221, obv. 8. 

amél KWPU: améel t¢il-la gid-da-me§, [542] K. 114, obv. 8; 2mél ni- 
gab, [847] 83-1-18, 115, rv. 5; 2m¢l ki-pa-nu, [542] K. 114, obv. 17; 
amél ki-pa-ni-Su, [524] K. 588, obv. 10; 2™¢ ki-pi, [516] 81-7-27, 
31, rv. 1; ki-pi, [95] K. 1151, rv. 7; 2™6! ki-i-pi, [214] K. 831, rv. 14; 
amél kj-e-pu, [88] K. 507, obv. 7, [476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 28, [703] K. 
8989, oby. 5, [868] 81-2-4, 119, obv. 5; 2mé! ki-pu, [703] K. 8989, 
oby. 9; 2™¢1 ki-e-pi, [169] K. 997, obv. 8; 2™¢! ki-ba-a-ni, [442] 
K. 543, oby. 14; 2™¢l ki-pa-a-ni, [437] K. 168, rv. 9. 

amé1 RAB HALSU: amélrab al hal-su, [343] 83-1-18, 18, obv. 3. 

amé] RAB URATE: 2™él rab u-ra-te, [630] K. 1264, obv. 13. amél 
ra[b] ... . (?) [623] K. 1212, obv. 1. 

amé1 KA.TIN(?), KATINNU(?2): 2™él ka-tin-ni Sarri, [74] K. 185, 
obv. 11. 

amél] SUKALLU: amé! lub, [70] K. 1070, obv. 1, 4, rv. 4, [132] K. 655, 
oby. 1, 3, 5, rv. 10, [235] K. 13016, obv. 1.3, rv. 5, [253] K. 1175-++1207, 
oby. 8(?), [327] K. 517, rv. 2, [424] S. 760, obv. 12, rv. 12, [473] 81-24, 
65, rv. 11, [505] 81-2-4, 95, obv. 1, 3, 4, 6, [716] K. 31, rv. 11, [748] K. 
5474, obv. 2, [781] K. 823, obv. 2, 4, 5, rv. 7, [805] S. 267, obv. 2, 5, 
(102), 12, [874] Bu. 89-4-26, 31, obv. 12, [844] K. 986, obv. 2, 9; amél 
lub dan-nu, [568] K. 956, rv. 12; 2™61 luh II-u (=Sanf), [568] 
K. 956, rv. 15. 

amél] SARTINU: amél sqa-4r-te-nu, [716] K. 31, rv. 11, 15, 27; 2m6l 
sar-tin-nu, [46] K. 939a, rv. 14 [568] K. 956, rv. 14; amél sar- 
tin-ni, [441] K. 534, obv. 18. 

amél RAB DAN.DAN (KAL.LAB?): 4™é6l rab dan-dan-me§, 
[380] R™ 2, 3, obv. 5. 

amél MASSARU: 2™6! en-nun, [197] K. 181, rv. 7, 23; 2m™é6l en-nun 
biti ili, [493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 11; 2mél sa en-nun, [99] K. 5466, 
rv. 17, [853] 82-5-22, 169, rv. 19, [410] R™ 2, 4, obv. 5, rv. 9, 13; en 
en-nun, [238] K. 1107, rv. 5. 

amé1 RAB HANSA: amél rab L, [251] K. 506, obv. 4, 15, 20, 27, rv. 5, 7. 

amé] RAB SITIRTE(?): 2™@lrab u-te, [432] D. T. 220, obv. 2, [816] 
K. 88, obv. 3; 2™¢l rab u-ti, [423] 83-1-18, 12, oby. 3, [829] K. 297, 


12 Nores on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


obv. 3; 261 rab u-gi (error for te), [671] K. 678, obv. 3; 2mé6l 
rab u-meSs-te, [867] 81-2-4, 94, obv. 5. 

amél1 RAB KARMANT: 4mél1 rab kar-man, [43] K. 122, obv. 18; 
amél gar-man(?)-mes, [155] K. 1235, obv. 4, 7. 

amé1 RAB KARANT: 4™6lrab geStin, [42] K. 14, rv. 11. 

amé1 RAB KARI: 4™élrab ka-a-ri, [467] S. 456, rv. 18. 

am6é1 MANZAZ PANT: 2™é6l man-za-az pani-ia, [291] K. 828, obv. 
14; amél man-za-az pa-ni, [540] K. 87, obv. 7; 2™6l ma-za-si 
pa-ni, [656] 82-5-22, 168, rv. 8; 2mé! gub-ba pa-ni-ia, [289] K. 
312, obv. 10; 2™61 gub-ba pa-ni-Su, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, rv. 10. 

amé1 ABARAKKU, or TUKULTU: 4mé! si-um, [63] K. 549, obv. 
8, [75] K. 546, obv. 6, [84] K. 117, obv. 9, [89] K. 515, obv. 7, [114] K. 
538, obv. 15, rv. 6, [145] K. 910, obv. 1, [273] K. 578, obv. 6, [893] 
80-7-19, 25, obv. 10, rv. 3, [543] K. 176, rv. 9, [633] K. 1366, rv. 15, 

. [639] K. 8390, rv. 12; a2mél us si-um, [867] 81-24, 94, rv. 4. 

amél1 TRRISU: amél apin, [4] K. 568, obv. 1, 3, 4, [15] K. 1197, obv. 1, 
[38] K. 1049, obv. 1, 3, 5, 7, [183] K. 113, obv. 1, 4, [167] K. 582, obv. 
16 [223] K. 112, obv. 1, 18, rv. 10, [332] K. 13000, obv. 1, [361] 81-2-4, 
58, obv. 1, 5, 7, [862] 83-1-18, 16, obv. 1(?), 15, [735] 82-5-22, 135, 
obv. 1 [816] K. 88, obyv. 1,6; 2™¢l apin-mes 6-gal, [871] 82-5-22, 
114, rv. 6; 2m61 jr-ri-Se-6, [500] K. 1308, obv. 8. 

amé] NU,GIS.SAR (URKIU?2): 2™él nu-gis-Sar-mes, [182] K. 
1058, obv. 4, [564] K. 937, rv. 4; 2mé¢1 nu-gis ur-ki, [167] K. 582, 
obv. 15. 

amél] MALAWU: 4mél m4-lab su bar-ra, [167] K. 582, obv. 14; 
amélm4-du-du-mes, [103] K. 1189, obv. 10. 

amé1 USPARU; (EMITU?): 2™él us-par-me$, [209] K. 636, obv. 7; 
[413] Bu. 91-5-9, 12, rv. 8; [714] K. 1217, obv. 7; 541 uS-par-mes- 
te, [196] K. 125, obv. 24. 

amé1 API. SIPRI, MAR SIPRI, KALLAB SIPIRTI, MAR 
TEME: amél q-ki, [90] K. 594, rv. 4, 8, [101] K. 561, obv. 7, [144] 
K. 194, rv. 4, [145] K. 910, obv. 4, [165] K. 497, obv. 4, [171] K. 1047, 
obv. 4, [173] K. 686, obv. 7, [238] K. 1107, obv. 6, rv. 9, [264] K. 1045, 
rv. 6, [269] K. 528, rv. 7, [281] K. 13, rv. 5, [282] K. 524, obv. 17, rv. 15, 
[286] K.5398, obv. 5, [311] K. 630, rv. 5, [412] 48-7-20, 115, rv. 9, [424] 
S. 760, obv. 15, 19, [433] 79-7-8, 138, rv. 17, [472] 80-7-19, 46, rv. 3, 
[474] 81-2-4, 67, rv. 2, [528] K. 1065, obv. 8, [548] K. 593, obv. 7, [559] 
K. 899, obv. 11, [576] K. 1009, obv. 7 [589] K. 1106, obv. 9, [622] K. 
1210, obv. 1, 2(?), [685] 81-24, 96, obv. 29, [749] S. 1975, rv. 9, [754] 
K. 5457, obv. 6, [779] 83-1-18, 90, obv. 12, [792] 83-1-18, 52, rv. 16, 
[846] K. 673, rv. 16; 261 a-ki-e-a, [157] K. 504, obv. 8, [340] Bu. 
91-5-9, 183, obv. 8; 2m6l a-ki-ia, [147] K. 1170, obv. 12, [193] K. 
542, obv. 11, [259] K. 509, rv. 6, [286] K. 5398, obv. 6, [314] K. 1227, 
oby. 10; 2mél a-ki-ka, [98] K. 5465, obv. 7, [206] K. 539, obv. 12, 
[214] K. 831, obv. 15, [434] Bu. 89-4-26, 163, rv. 2, [587] K. 1104, rv. 
16; 2mél q-ki-Su, [524] K. 588, rv. 8; am61 a-ki-ku-nu, [815] 48- 
7-20, 116, rv. 17; 2m™61 a-ki-Su-nu, [158] K. 530, obv. 20, [792] 83- 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 13 


1-18, 52, obv. 9, 15; 2™61a-ki-mes, [146] K. 1080, rv. 5, [267] K. 
462, rv. 7, [317] K. 5291, rv. 12, [462] K. 1374, rv. 7, [627] K. 1241, obv. 
8, [749] S. 1975, obv. 5, [862] K. 1056, obv. 7; 2m™61 a-ki-meSs-ni, 
[129] K. 5458, obv. 24; 2mél a-ki-mes-e-a, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, 
rv. 14; am6l a-ki-meS-Su, [576] K. 1009, rv. 8; 2™61 ki-a, [515] K. 
621, oby. 5, 6; 2mé61 ki-a-mes, [515] K. 621, obv. 12; 2m¢! a-Sig, 
[140] K. 518, rv. 1, [154] K. 653, obv. 12, 20; 2mé@1 a-sig-ia, [602] 
K. 1127, rv. 2; 2™61 a-Sig-mes, [304] K. 533, obv. 10; 2™6! a 8i- 
pir-mes, [242] K. 11148, obv. 18; 2m6l a Sip-ri, [197] K. 18], rv. 
20, [824] K. 523, rv. 5, [705] 82-5-22, 109, rv. 18; 2m6l a Sip-ri-ia, 
[251] K. 506, obv. 14, [480] K. 8402, rv. 7, [637] K. 1888, rv. 1; amé6l 
BOS ied te ove , [442] K. 543, rv. 19; améla Sip-ri-ka, [845] 83-1- 
18, 39, obv. 4, 7; 2m6! a-ri-ka, [208] K. 617, obv. 9; 2™6! a Sip- 
ri-meS, [343] 83-1-18, 18, rv. 4; 2m61 tur-ki-ia, [721] K. 912, obv. 
5, [832] K. 9390, obv. 5, [833] K. 982, obv. 5, [835] K. 54180, obv. 5, 
[836] K. 5423c, obv. 5, [837] K. 7526, obv. 5; 2m6! tur Sip-ri, [112] 
K. 485, obv. 14, [139] K. 1067, rv. 4, 8, 9, [227] K. 560, obv. 10, [276] 
K, 154, obv. 11, [805] S. 267, rv. 9; 2m™61 tur Si-pir, [555] K. 677, 
oby. 11, 18; 2m6! tur Sip-ri-ia, [463] K. 1438, obv. 3, 4; tur 
Sip-ri, [775] S. 268a, rv. 14; 2m61 tur Sip-ri-mes, [633] K. 1366, 
oby. 18; 2mé6l tur Sip-ra-ni-ia, [123] K. 574, obv. 9; 2mé6! tur 
Sip-ia, [500] K. 1303, obv. 10; 2mé6! kal-la-bu Si-pir-te, [227] 
K. 560, rv. 1; 2m™61 kal-lab Si..... , [637] K. 1888, obv. 4; amél 
kal-lab Si-pir-tu, [322] K. 663, rv. 2. 

amél SANGU: amél gid, [48] K. 1019, obv. 8, [49] K. 1168, obv. 3, 17, 
[139] K. 1067, obv. 6, [177] K. 575, rv. 7, [493] 83-1-18, 13, obv. 3, 
[498] K. 646, obv. 20, [555] K. 677, obv. 9, [633] K. 1366, obv. 21, 26, 
rv. 3, 26, [724] K. 548, rv. 4, [780] K. 4734, obv. 17, [791] 83-1-18, 51, 
rv. 1; amél sid-meS, [468] R™ 217, obv. 11; 2mé! sid II-u, [419] 
83-1-18, 24, obv. 3, [577] K. 1010, rv. 2; 2m6! sid bit 2mé¢! mu 
[43] K. 122, rv.1; 2mél sid Sa bit 2mé6! mu, [43] K. 122, rv. 6; 
amél sid Sa bit 2™m¢l se-gar, [43] K. 122, rv. 12; am6él sid Sa 
bit kit-mu-ri, [152] K. 1101 + K. 1221, obv. 4, [710] 81-2-4, 87, 
obv. 3; 2™61 gid 8a bit iu SamaS, [49] K. 1168, rv. 24; amél 
Sid Sa bit VII-bi Sa ali Nina, [49] K. 1168, rv. 17, 18; amél 
Sid Sa ali Nina, [43] K.122,rv.8; amél Sid-mes Sa ali..... ; 
[48] K. 1019, obv. 5; am61 sid se-gar, [43] K. 122, rv. 2. 

amé] MUSARKISU: amél mu-Sar-kis, [132] K. 655, rv. 13, [186] K. 
1], oby. 12; amé! mu-sdr-kis-me§, [153] K. 558, rv. 2; 2mél mu- 
S4r-kis-mes-ni, [122] K. 491, obv. 6; 2m™6! mu-sSar-kis-mes, 
[127] K. 616, obv. 6; rv. 6,10; 2mé¢1 mu-Sar-ki-su, [326] K. 1249, 
rv. 4, 8,10; amé! mu-Sar-ki-si-mes, [344] 83-1-18, 28, obv. 3, 8; 
amé6l mu-Sar-ki-sa-a-ni, [190] K. 596, obv. 4, 12, [630] K. 1264, 
oby. 14; amé61 mu-[..... ], [680] K. 1264, rv. 5; 2mé! mu-Sar- 
ki-[.... ?], [153] K. 558, rv. 8. 

amél A.BA, or DUPSARRU: 4™¢1 DUPSARROTU: 4™61 a-ba, 
[84] K. 117, obv. 11, rv. 8, 16, [90] K. 594, rv. 15, [127] K. 616, obv. 5, 


14 Nores on Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


[151] K. 652, obv. 7, [153] K. 558, rv. 3, [189] K. 1048, obv. 3, [415] 
Bu. 91-5-9, 157, oby. 5, [429] R™ 69, obv. 12, [434] Bu. 89-4-26, 163, 
rv. 9, [532] 83-1-18, 15, rv. 1, [557] K. 893, obv. 3, [563] K. 935, rv. 
9, [633] K. 1366, obv. 9, rv. 2, 15, [688] 80-7-19, 21, obv. 10, 15, [697] 
81-2-4, 73, rv. 2, [706] K. 1076, obv. 5, [779] 83-1-18, 90, obv. 13, [872] 
Bu. 89-4-26, 16, obv. 8; 2™é! a-ba-meS, [33] K. 572, obv. 6, [846] 
Bu. 89-4-26, 9, obv. 2, [847] 81-2-4, 52, obv. 10, 11, [886] 83-1-18, 9 
oby. 6, [423] 83-1-18, 12, obv. 4, [829] K. 297, obv. 4; 2m61 a-ba- 
mes-ni, [739] 81-2-4, 101, obv. 5; 2m61 rab a-ba, [307] K. 1078 
oby. 4; 2m6la-ba II-u, [532] 83-1-18, 15, obv. 10; a2mél a-ba 
mati, [211] K. 662, obv. 4, 20, [568] K. 956, rv. 19; am6l a-ba 
é6-gal, [114] K. 538, obv. 15, rv. 7, [211] K. 662, obv. 10, [220] K. 1274 
oby. 1, rv. 5; 2mél a-ba biti ili, [724] K. 548, rv. 10; 2m61 dup- 
Sar, [733] 81-2-4, 113, obv. 2; amé! dup-Sar-sSu, [42] K. 14, rv. 12; 
amél qup-Sar biti ili, [476], 83-1-18, 5, obv. 28; amé! dup 
[Sar](?), [557] K. 893, rv. 10; 2mé¢1 dup-sar ali, [530] 80-7-19, 40, 
oby. 18; 2™é61 dup-Sar-u-tt, [755] 83-1-18, 122, oby. 10; dup- 
Sar-u-te [629] K. 1263, obv. 11. 

amé] MUTIR PUTI: ame! gur-zak, [558] K. 896, rv. 3, [714] K. 1217, 
obv. 6; 2™é6l gur-zak-meS, [85] K. 613, rv. 2; am¢l gur pu-tu, 
[167] K. 582, oby. 20, [226] K. 526, oby. 9, [228] K. 1055, rv. 4, [340] 
Bu. 91-5-9, 183, oby. 13, [839] 83-1-18, 19, rv. 11, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 
157, rv. 14, [476] 83-1-18, 5, rv. 23, [544] K. 464, obv. 6, [564] K. 937, 
oby. 7, [685] 81-24, 96, rv. 3; amél gur pu-tt, [600] K. 1125, obv. 
10; amél gur-ru pu-tt, [266] K. 79, rv. 20, [275] K. 82, obv. 14, 18, 
[462] K. 1374, rv. 28(?), [792] 83-1-18, 52, rv. 13, [794] 83-1-18, 150, 
rv. 17, [866] 81-24, 93, obv. 6; 2™6! gur pu-ti, [127] K. 616, obv. 
4, [206] K. 539, obv. 7, rv. 1, 9, [806] K. 622, obv. 12, [556] K. 683, 
oby. 11, [860] K. 845, obv. 10; 2™é6! gur pu-te, [99] K. 5466, rv. 17, 
[124] K. 903, obv. 6, [165] K. 497, rv..8, [243] K. 567, obv. 8, [246] K. 
669, obv. 14, [306] K. 622, obv. 3, (162), [336] K. 644, oby. 13, [408] R™ 
2, 1, obv. 7, [494] 80-7-19, 23, rv. 11, [552] K. 640, obv. 5, rv. 4, [598] 
K. 1123, obv. 3, [610] K. 1142, rv. 8, [638] K. 2908, obv. 6 (15%), 
[667] 81—7-27, 30, rv. 3, [742] R™ 2, 462, obv. 5, [760] R™ 2, 7, obv. 4, 
[761] R™ 2, 474, obv. 4; 2™6! Sa gur-ru pu-ti, [721] K. 912, rv.1. 

amél1 SANU;: amél JJ-u,, [154] K. 653, obv. 15, [424] S. 760, rv. 5, [428] 
83-1-18, 25, rv. 1, [506] K. 678, rv. 4, [623] K. 1212, obv.3; 2mél TI-u, 
[207] K. 541, obv. 9, [211] K. 662, rv. 2; am¢l TI-u-te, [585] K. 1098, 
rv. 3, [682] K. 608, obv. 18; 2mé! TTI-e, [49] K. 1168, rv. 10, [382] 81- 
7-27, 199, obv. 1, 199A, 1, [784] K. 1031, obv. 5; amél IT -i, [252] K. 
525, oby. 12, [746] 83-1-18, 146, obv. 8; am6!1IT..... , [787] R= 
55, obv. 6; amél TT-u-su, [42] K. 14, rv. 12. 

amél] SALSU: amél JIJ-su, [140] K. 518, obv. 11, 13, [211] K. 662, rv. 
10, [580] K. 1051, rv. 3; amé1 TITI-hu-si, [82] K. 527, rv. 12, [100] K. 
554, obv. 9, [211] K. 662, obv. 4, [842] 79-7-8, 234, rv. 19, [425] Bu. 
91-5-9, 105, obv. 8, [506] K. 678, obv. 7; ame! ITT-hu-[si], [568] 
K. 956, rv. 21; amél TI T-hu-si- mes, [85] K. 613, obv. 11, [683] R= 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 15 


550, rv. 11; 2™6! II I-hu-si-ia, [639] K. 8390, obv. 7, [842] 79-7-8, 
234, rv. 14, [705] 82-5-22, 109, rv. 4. 

amél1 RAKBU: 4mé6l gis-mar, [607] K. 1134, rv. 2; amél gis-m4r- 
mes, [374] 82-5-22, 172, obv. 10; 2mé! bél gis-mdr-mes, [567] 
K. 946, obv. 18; 2m™61b61]1 gis-[mar-mes], [567] K. 946, rv. 1; 
amél bél [gis-mdr-meS], [567] K. 946, rv. 3. 

amé1 TAMKARU: 2™é!1dam-kar, [186] K. 11, rv. 8, [233] K. 7339, 
obv. 8, [532] 83-1-18, 15, obv. 8, [578] K. 1018, rv. 8; 2m¢1 dam-kar- 
meS, [196] K. 125, obv. 20, [234] K. 7548, obv. 5, [310] K. 610, obv. 9, 
[458] K. 1122, rv. 5, [529] K. 1252A, oby. 4. 

amé1 RAB KISIR, RAB KISIRUTU: 4™élrab ki-sir, [173] K. 
686, obv. 4. [275] K. 82, rv. 5, [315] K. 1402, obv. 10, [434] Bu. 89-426, 
163, rv. 15, [462] K. 1374, obv. 21, rv. 27, [500] K. 1303, obv. 6, [530] 
80-7-19, 40, obv. 14, [543] K. 176, rv. 15 [582] K. 1093, obv. 4, [639] 
K. 8390, obv. 3, rv. 1; 2™6l rab ki-sir-mes, [138] K. 469, obv. 10, 
rv. 3, [169] K. 997, obv. 13, [842] 79-7-8, 234, obv. 4, [505] 81-2-4, 95, 
oby.6;[.... ] sir-mes, [557] K. 893, rv. 5; amélrab ki-gir-u- 
tu, [85] K. 613, obv. 9; 2m¢l rab ka-sir, [144] K. 194, obv. 3, [571] 
K. 998, obv. 10, [633] K. 1366, oby. 12, [755] 83-1-18, 122, obv. 15, 
[806] Bu. 91-5-9, 85, obv. 2; 2mélrab ka-sar, [273] K. 578, rv. 
3, [274] K. 81, obv. 22; amélki-sir, [414] R™ 77, obv. 12, [557] K. 
893, obv. 4(?); [@mél rab] ki-sir, [631] K. 1265, obv. 2; rab ki- 
sir, [631] K. 1265, obv. 9, 10. 

amé1 RAB MUGU: 4mélrab mu-gu, [154] K. 653, obv. 15; amél 
rab mu-gi, [108] K. 519, rv. 3. 

amé1 RAB GAR.SID: 2mélrab gar-sid-me8, [633] K. 1366, obv. 
ll,rv.4; amélrab gar-sid sa ékalli, [263] K. 825, rv. 4, 5. 

amé1 NUN.MES (RUBUTU?): @™61 nun-me§, [468] R™ 217, rv. 6. 

am61§U.I, GALLABU: mélgu-i-su, (2) [15] K. 1197, rv. 6, [439] K. 
432, obv.6; 2mé61 Su-u-i(?), [183] K. 113, rv. 1; am6lsu-[  ], [438] 
K, 177, rv. 10. 

amé] RAKSU: amélrak-su, [709] 80-7-19, rv. 15; 2m6l rak-su-mes, 
[64] K. 550, obv. 9, [154] K. 653, obv. 14, [242] K. 11148, obv. 12; 
amél rak-su-ti, [804] K. 533, obv. 9; amél rak-Su-te, [709] 80-7- 
19, 67, obv. 7; 2™61sab-meS-ia ra-ki-su-te, [482] 82-5-22, 104, 
oby. 10; 2™élrab rak-si, [414] R™ 77, obv. 6. 

amé1SAKNU: amélgar-nu, [414] R™ 77, obv. 10, [630] K. 1264, obv. 
13, [524] K. 588, obv. 12, [639] K. 8390, obv. 6, [763] 81-2-4, 126, obv. 
6, [871] 82-5-22, 114, obv. 9; am6l gar-ni, [414] R™ 77, obv. 19; 
amél gar-nu-mes, [374] 82-5-22, 172, obv. 8, [557] K. 893, rv. 5; 
amél gar-nu-mes-Su-nu, [138] K. 469, rv. 13; amél gar-nu-te, 
[880] R™ 2, 3, obv.5; 2™61 gar-nu-u-tu, [533] 83-1-18, 44, rv. 8; 
amél gar-mat (=8a-kin), [60] K. 487, obv. 9, [807] K. 1078, obv. 
2, 6, [339] 83-1-18, 19, rv. 5, [442] K. 543, rv. 16, [473] 81-2-4, 65, obv. 
1, 4, 13, rv. 8, 14, 19, [611] K. 1143, rv. 11; amel sak-nu, [238] K. 
1107, rv. 8, [270] K. 1089, obv. 6, [419] 83-1-18, 24, obv. 9, 11, [542] 
K. 114, obv. 14, rv. 3, [863] K. 1196, rv. 6; 2m61 Sak-ni, [524] K. 588, 


16 Novzs on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


rv. 7, [567] K. 946, obv. 12, [638] K. 2908, obv. 14; 2m61§a-ak-ni, 
[833] K. 982, rv. 7; 2m6lsak-na, [846] K. 673, obv. 13; 2m6¢l §ak- 
ni-ku-nu, [287] K. 94, rv.3; amé6lsak-ni-su-nu, [610] K. 1142, 
obyv. 10; 2m61 §a-kan-Su-nu, [610] K. 1142, obv. 5; am6l gar-su- 
nu, [537] K. 8535, obv. 8; 2m¢1 gar-man(?)-mes[=Ssakin-Sarri- 
mes ?], [155] K. 1235, obv. 4, 7. 

amé1AB.BA: amélab-ba-mes, [91] K. 620, obv. 13, [256] K. 1202, 
obv. 6, [287] K. 94, obv. 12, [289] K. 312, obv. 2, [293] K. 1054, obv. 3, 
[295] K. 1139, obv. 2, [296] K. 1162, obv. 2, [297] K. 1271, obv. 2, [377] 
83-1-18, 43, obv. 16, [459] K. 1141, obv. 6, [517] 82-5-22, 91, obv. 8, 
[518] 83-1-18, 27, obv. 3. 

amél1 ASU; amélg-zu, [274] K. 81, obv. 6, [341] 82-5-22, 174, oby. 13, 
[465] K. 8509, rv. 8, 11; 2mél a-zu-mes, [33] K. 572, obv. 8, [157] K. 
504, obv. 5. 

amé1 BAL ALI: 2mélen er, [645] R™ 2, 464, obv. 5, 13, [317] K. 5291, 
obv. 4, [590] K. 1111, obv.5; 2mélen-mes er Ha-lu-li-e, [262] K. 
607, obv. 12; amélen er-meS, [88] K. 507, obv. 13, [342] 79-7-8, 
234, rv. 21, [526] K. 628, obv. 3; 2m™6len er-meSs-ni, [136] K. 631, 
oby.5;....en er-meSs-ni, [784] K. 1031, obv. 16. 

amé61BRHL PAMATI, 2mel1PAHATI: amélen-nam, [32]K.527, obv. 
11, [43] K. 122, obv. 13, [59] K. 1041, obv. 7, [71] K. 1113 + K. 1229, 
obv. 12, [89] K. 515, obv. 11, rv. 2, 10, [95] K. 1151, rv. 4, [102] K. 657, 
obv. 10, [112] K. 485, obv. 15, [129] K. 5458, rv. 9, [140] K. 518, obv. 7, 
rv. 1, 6, [151] K. 652, obv. 10, [179] K. 664, obv. 6, [190] K. 596, rv. 7, 
[197] K. 181, rv. 5, [198] K. 5464, rv. 1, [206] K. 539, rv. 8, [208] K. 
617, obv. 7, [220] K. 1274, obv. 9, [266] K. 79, obv. 19, [311] K. 630, 
oby. 6, 8, [339] 83-1-18, 19, obv. 7, rv. 5, 18, [880] R™ 2, 3, obv. 6, 13, 
[381] 81-2-4, 55, obv. 9, 11, [409] R™ 2, 2, obv. 9, 10, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 
157, obv. 11, [421] 83-1-18, 6, obv. 12, [424] S. 760, obv. 9, [444] 
K. 645, obv. 6, [462] K. 1374, obv. 21, rv. 27, [486] K. 8375, obv. 4, 7, 
rv. 3, 9, 10, 15, [532] 83-1-18, 15, obv. 10, [543] K. 176, rv. 5, 6, [547] 
K. 587, rv. 8, [548] K. 593, obv. 8, [558] K. 896, rv. 4, 5, 7, 8, [564] 
K. 937, obv. 2, [615] K. 1153, obv. 5, [626] K. 1233, rv. 3, [633] K. 1366, 
rv. 3(?2), 5, 27, [646] 79-7-8, 292, obv. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, [754] K. 5457, 
obv. 5, 11, 12, [769] K. 1042, rv. 2, [771] 83-1-18, 49, rv. 7, [790] S. 
1392, obv. 5, [803] K. 13090, obv. 1, [830] K. 1376, obv. 1, [845] K. 
671, obv. 16, [846] K. 673, rv. 18, 21, [849] K. 580, rv. 5; 2m6len- 
na[m], [49] K. 1168, rv. 6; @m™6len-[nam], [131] K. 625, obv. 7; 
[205] K. 537, rv. 3; 2m61 en-nam-me§, [881] 81-2-4, 55, rv. 7, [444] 
K. 645, obv. 4, [506] K. 678, obv. 11, [646] 79-7-8, 292, obv. 5, 12, 14; 
amél en-nam-me8-te, [197] K. 181, obv. 13, [198] K. 5464, obv. 16; 
amél en-nam-mes-te-e-Su, [198] K. 5464, obv. 14; 2mél en-nam- 
mes-Su, [197] K. 181, obv. 11; en-nam, [189] K. 1048, obv. 9, [221] 
K. 175, rv. 11; amé61 nam, [190] K. 596, obv. 25, rv. 11, [671] K. 78, 
rv. 5, [839] 83-1-18, 21, rv. 15; 2mé1nam-mes, [148] K. 1907, rv. 1, 
[409] R™ 2, 2, obv. 15, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, obv. 9, [464] K. 1519, 
rv. 3, [506] K. 678, obv. 12, [543] K. 176, obv. 12; 2™61 en-nam II-u, 
[424] S. 760, obv. 10. 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 17 


amé]1 DAGIL ISSURATE: 4mélda-gil muSén-me§8, [83] K. 572, 
oby. 9, [410] R™ 2, 4, obv. 6, 12. 

amél DATALU: amél da-a-a-lu, [530] 80-7-19, 40, obv. 12; 2mél da- 
a-a-li, [52] K. 80, rv. 3, 6, [309] K. 1021, obv. 6, [424] S. 760, obv. 7, 
[444] K. 645, rv. 4, [509] 81-24, 123, obv. 13; 2™¢1 da-a-a-li-ka, 
[148] K. 1907, obv. 3; 2™61 da-ia-a-li, [544] K. 464, obv.17; (am6))? 
da-a-a-la, [618] K. 1169, obv. 15; #mél da-a-a-li-ia, [769] K. 
1042, obv. 4; 2™é6élrab da-a-a-lu, [530] 80-7-19, 40, obv. 12; 
amélrab da-a-a-li, [573] K. 1003, obv. 9, 13; 2m@lrab da-a-a- 
li-ia, [547] K. 587, rv. 6. 

amé1 MUTTAGGISU: 4méltin, [102] K. 657, obv. 4; amél tin- 
mes, [253] K. 1175+ 1207, obv. 4, 11; amél tin-meS-ni-ia, 
[253] K. 1175 + 1207, obv. 7; 2™é@lrab tin-mes, [389] S. 1034, 
ry. 3. 

amé1 DATANU: améldi-tar, [403] Bu. 91-5-9, 210, obv. 14; 2mé! da- 
a-a-nu, [340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, rv. 16, 20. 

amé] ZAMMERU: 2™é1 Jul, [473] 81-24, 65, obv. 10; 2mé@! lul-mes, 
[210] K. 647, obv. 3, [408] R™ 2, 1, rv. 15, 22, 30, [599] K. 1124, rv. 5; 
amél]y]-meS-Su-nu, [599] K. 1124, obv. 9. 

amé1 HAZANU (LAPUTTU?), 2™*1HAZANUTU: 4™élnu- 
banda, [505] 81-2-4, 95, oby. 7; m6! ha-za-nu, [150] K. 598, obv. 
3, [366] 82-5-22, 96, obv. 10, 16, [419] 83+1-18, 24, obv. 5, [445] K. 724, 
rv. 1, [493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 15, [551] K. 634, obv. 3, [573] K. 1003, obv. 
9, [710] 81-24, 87, obv. 6, [812] 82-5-22, 93, obv. 3; 2m™6l ha-za-nu 
Sa biti ilu Nabu, [65] K. 629, oby. 12; #mé@lha-za-ni, [251] 
K. 506, obv. 5, [473] 81-2-4, 65, obv. 9; #™é! ha-za-nu-ti, [473] 
81-24, 65, obv. 6; 2mé1 ha-za-na-te, [91] K. 620, oby. 12; 2mé! ha- 
za... (2), [528] K. 1065, obv. 10. 

amé1 MUTIR THEME: 4™¢lmu-tir te-e-mu, [336] K. 644, obv. 4; 
amélmu-tir ....... (2), [265] K. 13100, oby. 5. 

amé1 NANGARU: 4mélnagar-mes, [87] K. 466, obv. 6, rv. 7, [95] 
K. 1151, rv. 10; 2™¢! nagar-meS-Su-nu, [475] 83-1-18, 3, obyv. 10; 
amél nagar, [476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 21. 

amél1 NASTKU: 4mélna-sik, [608] K. 1136, rv.7; 2™61 na-sik-ku, 
[504] K. 1176, obv. 10; 2™¢1 na-si-ku, [280] K. 10, obv. 14, [520] K. 
680, oby. 4, 14, rv. 16, [774] Bu. 894-26, 162, obv. 13; #™é1 na-si- 
k[u], [451] K. 924, rv. 10; #mé¢l na-si-ka-a-ti, [280] K. 10, obv. 19, 
[831] K. 470, rv.5; 2mé¢l na-si-ka-[a-ti], [622] K. 1210, rv. 4; amél 
na-si ...., [210] K. 647, obv. 19. 

-amél1NAPPAHU: 2mélsimug ékalli, [502] K. 661, rv. 2; amél 
simug hurasi, [566] K. 942, oby.18; 2@m™é6l murub (for simug) 
hurdasi, [551] K. 634, rv. 7, [812] 82-5-22, 93, rv. 9, [847] 83-1-18, 
115, obv. 3. 

amél] PAHARU: amélduk ka-bur, [403] Bu. 91-5-9, 210, obv. 5, 7; 
amél pa-hi-ru, (2) [166] K. 505, obv. 3. 

amél] PIRHINU: 4mélpir-hi-nu, [90] K. 594, rv. 14, [533] 83-1-18, 
44, oby. 3; 2mél pir-hi-ni, [167] K. 582, rv. 17. 


18 Nores on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


am61 RAB ALANT: amélrab er, [424] S. 760, rv. 3; 2m™¢lrab er- 
mes, [784] K. 1031, obv. 15; 2m¢1 rab er-mes-te, [633] K. 1366, 
rv. 15, [778] 81-24, 75, rv. 10: 2m6lrab-mes gadl-mes, [253] K. 
1175 + 1207, obv. 5, 138; aml rab er-meS-Su, [252] K. 525, obv. 8; 
amélrab er-mes-su-nu, [424] S. 760, rv. 5; @mélrab er-mes 
ba-a-mes, [767] 83-1-18, 75, rv. 1; 2™6lrab er-mes mu-bu, 
[506] K. 678, rv. 5. 

amé]1 RABUTE: 4mél gal-me3, [43] K. 122, obv. 7, 11, [126] K. 609, 
obv. 6, rv. 3, [174] K. 619, rv. 11, 14, [284] K. 599, obv. 8, 12, [827] K. 
517, rv. 2, [328] K. 638, obv. 9, [441] K. 534, obv. 5, [451] K. 924, obv. 
17, [460] K. 1250, obv. 3, [467] S. 456, obv. 6, [482] 82-5-22, 104, obv. 
13, [523] K. 585, rv. 1, [532] 83-1-18, 15, rv. 7, [546] K. 557, obv. 6, [598] 
K. 1123, obv. 4, [633] K. 1366, obv. 16, [714] K. 1217, obv. 8, [804] K. 
544, rv. 8, [867] 81-2-4, 94, rv. 7; 2m61 gal-mes-te, [639] K. 8390, 
rv. 11; 2m61 gal-[mes](?), [117] K. 991, rv. 7; 2m6l gal-gal-mes, 
[467] S. 456, rv. 14; amél gal-mes-Su, [197] K. 181, obv. 28, rv. 12, 
[281] K. 13, rv. 7, [284] K. 599, obyv. 12, [515] K. 621, rv. 7. 

amél] RAB BITI, 2™¢1 BEL BITTI, amél BITI: amél gal-6, [197] 
K. 181, rv. 27, [242] K. 11148, rv. 13, [243] K. 567, rv. 10, [281] K. 13, 
rv. 19, [414] R™ 77, rv. 3, [415] Bu. 91-5-9, 157, obv. 3, [579] K. 1043, 
obv. 8, [610] K. 1142, obv. 18, [746] 83-1-18, 146, obv. 8, [784] K. 1031, 
oby. 10; 2™61 gal-6-Su, [228] K. 1055, rv.14; amél gal-mes Sa 
biti, [67] K. 1050, rv.1; rab Sa bit-meS=rab bitani(?), [221] 
K. 175, rv. 12. 

amél RAB EKALLI or RAB MATI: 4™6l gal-6-gal, [99] K. 5466, 
rv. 11, [160] K. 1243, obv. 14, [512] K. 858, obv. 2; 2mé1 gal-6-g[al](?), 
[774] Bu. 89-4-26, 162, rv. 13; 2mélrab mati (gal-kur), [512] K. 
858, oby.7;.... gal-6-gal, [99] K. 5466, obv. 9. 

amél KALLU: amél kal-lu-u, [275] K. 82, obv. 9, rv. 11, 16; amél 
kal-li-i, [434] Bu. 89-426, 163, rv. 16; amélrab kal-li-e, [414] 
R™ 77, obv. 6; 2m61 gal-la, [266] K. 79, rv. 2, 11, [805] S. 267, obv. 
10; 2mél ka-al-la-a, [852] K. 479, rv. 4; 2mé1 maré kal-lu-te, 
[563] K. 935, rv. 4; 2m61 kal-mes, [8] K. 492, oby. 11; amél kal- 
mes-te, [232] K. 1059, obv. 7. 

amé1 KALU: amélrab ka-li-i, [419] 83-1-18, 24,rv.18; am6l us-ku, 
[493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 10, [861] 81-2-4, 58, rv. 9. 

amél1US.KATI: amélug ka-ti, [90] K. 594, oby. 10. 

am61§A ELI BABI, 2™¢1 RAB ABULLE: 4mél ga mub ka, 
[277] K. 1066, rv.7; 2m¢1 gal kd-gal-me3, [493] 83-1-18, 13, rv. 17. 

amélSA PANI BKALLI: amélga §8i ékalli, [90] K. 594, oby. 11, 
rv. 4, 8, [287] K. 94, rv. 5, [828] K. 638, obv. 9, [329] K. 8383, obv. 10, 
[568] K. 956, rv. 17, [725] K. 12989, obv. 5, [733] 81-2-4, 113, obv. 4; 
amél§a si ékalli-meS, [377] 83-1-18, 43, obv. 14; 2m¢lSa\pa-ni 
é6kalli, [202] K. 83, rv.1, [270] K. 1089, obv. 5; 2mélsa pa-an 
6-gal[l], [521] 83-1-18, 4, rv. 8. 

am61S AKU: 2mél sag, [1] K. 167, obv. 11, [158] K. 530, obv. 4, [190] 
K. 596, obv. 10, [220] K. 1274, rv. 8, [261] K. 563, rv. 1, [267] K. 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 19 


462, rv. 12, [322] K. 663, obv. 11, [343] 83-1-18, 18 obv, 9, [434] Bu. 
89-426, 163, rv. 21, [448] K. 826, obv. 3, [527] K. 830, rv. 13, [565] K. 
941, rv. 7, [623] K. 1212, obv. 2, [633] K. 1366, obv. 6, [638] K. 2908, 
‘oby. 4, rv. 4, [746] 83-1-18, 146, rv. 4, [841] K. 4757, obv. 7; 2™¢l sag- 
ia, [304] K. 533, rv. 5, 7, [539] K. 17, rv. 13; 2™6! sag-su, [473] 81- 
2-4, 65, obv. 6, [547] K. 587, rv. 10, 2mé! sag-mesS, [84] K. 117, obv. 
7, [144] K. 194, obv. 5, 11, [336] K. 644, obv. 8, [532] 83-1-18, 15, 
obv. 4, [779] 83-1-18, 90, obv. 8; 2™61 sag-meS-ia, [138] K. 469, 
oby. 7, rv. 1; 2™6l sag-meS-Su, [473] 81-24, 65, obv. 7; 2m™&l sag- 
meS-ni, [322] K. 663, obv. 4, 12; 2m¢l sag Sa Sarri, [493] 83-1 
-18, 13, rv. 8; 2™61 sag Sarri, [556] K. 683, rv. 17; amél Sa-ku, 
[276] K. 154, rv. 10, [326] K. 1249, obv. 8, [827] K. 517, rv. 11, 
[340] Bu. 91-5-9, 183, obv. 23, rv. 12, [418] S. 1028, obyv. 3, [542] 
K. 114, obv. 12, [853] K. 905, obv. 13; amé! Sa-ku-mes, [340] Bu. 
91-5-9, 183, rv. 4; 2m™é¢1 Sa-ku-u-ti, [238] K. 1107, obv. 9. 

ZIKRIT EKALLI: sal 6-gal, [99] K. 5466, oby. 8, [232] K. 1059 
obv. 6, [233] K. 7339, obv. 6, [437] K. 168, obv. 9, 13, [568] K. 956, 
obv. 16, rv. 9, [633] K. 1366, obv. 16. 

KALLATU: sa! k4l-la-ti, [263] K. 825, obv. 6; 52! ka-al-la-a-te, 
[494] 80-7-19, 23, rv. 2. 

amél1 PIKITTU: amél pi-kit-ti [12] K. 666, obv. 6; 2mél pi-ki-ta- 
te, [779] 83-1-18, 90, oby. 9; 2mé@! bél pi-kit-te-ka-a, [573] K. 
1003, obv. 7; 2™6! bél pi-kit-ta-te-ia, [573] K. 1003, obv. 10; 
am6l1hé6] pi-kit-ta-a-te, [476] 83-1-18, 5, rv. 14; amél bél pi- 
kit-ta-a-a-te-mes, /[778] 81-24, 75, obv. 13; bél pi-k[it]-ti, 
[608] K. 1136, rv. 9; pi-kit-te, [658] 83-1-18, 81, obv. 9, [178] K. 
482, rv. 1, [586] K. 1102, obv. 4; pi-kit-ti, [9] K. 618, obv. 6, [5] K. 
583, oby. 10, [7] K. 601, obv. 4, [304] K. 583, obv. 7; pi-ki-te, [178] 
K. 482, obv. 8; pi-kid-di, [724] K. 548, rv. 9. 

amé1 SA BITHALLATI: 2™é1 bit-bal, [309] K. 1021, rv. 7; amel 
Sa bit-hal-la-ti, [138] K. 469, rv. 22; amél sa bit-hal-mes, 
[159] K. 1025, obv. 4, [546] K. 557, obv. 7, 14, [174] K. 619, oby, 21, 25; 
amél§q bit-ha[l-mes], [567] K. 946, obv. 15; 2m6! Sa eli biti 
8a bit-bal-[meS], [577] K. 1010, obv. 6. 

amél AGRU: amél ku-mal, [82] K. 1200, rv. 9; 2™¢lag-ru-tu, [210] 
K. 647, obv. 9. 

amél ARITU: Sa sia-ri-te al Mar-bu-ba-a-a, [251] K. 506, rv. 1. 

amél AS, KAK(?)A.A.TT, [385] R™ 2, 6, ry. 11. 

amél AS,SE, [814] 81-7-27, 34, rv. 7. 

amé1 #},BAR Sa i! Samai, [262] K. 607, rv. 11. 

amé17P,TU.GU.TU.RA, [251] K. 506, rv. 9. 

amél J MMANU: 4mélum-ma-nu, [172] K. 1052, obv. 5, [336] K. 
644, obv. 8; 2™¢lum-[ma-nul], [172] K. 1052, rv. 1; 2mé! um- 
me-a, [566] K. 942, rv. 4; 2m¢l um-ma-ni, [452] K. 943, obv. 10, 
[629] K. 1263, obv. 19, [867] 81-2-4, 94, oby. 3. 

amél] ARAMU: améla-ra-mu, [542] K. 114, obv. 15, [747] K. 923, obv. 
4,6; améla-ra-mi-Su, [542] K. 114, rv. 8. 


20 Norses on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


amél1 (JR: [465] K. 8509, rv. 7; ur-mes, [82] K. 527, obv. 10; a-ur 
(=mar kalbi) [208] K. 617, rv. 11. 

amél URASU: amél y-ra-si, [91] K. 620, obv. 13, rv. 2, [476] 83-1-18, 
5, rv. 20, [464] K. 1519, obv. 18; 2mé1 u-ra-si-e(?), [119] K. 499, rv. 
13; 2mél y-ra-su-tu, [209] K. 636, rv. 1; amé¢lrab u-ra-sa-ni, 
[323] K. 6005, obv. 5. 

amé1 {RIB BITI, NIRIB BITI: 2™é¢1¢ua biti, [475] 83-1-18, 3, 
oby. 7, [496] K. 474, obv. 14; 261 ta biti Sa biti ili, [560] K. 906, 
rv. 2; amélta biti 8a 1 Sam8i, [468] R™ 217, obv. 7; 2mél ta 
biti Sa i! Ninip; [493] 83-1-18, 13, obv. 12; amél ta biti Sa il 
Agur, [539] K. 17, rv. 14; 2™61 ta-mes biti Sa Dur-ilu, [401] 
83-1-18, 30, obv. 3;..... ta biti mes, [748] K. 5474, obv. 5; 
amél §a pani ni-ri-bi, [875] Bu. 89-426, 71, obv. 7. 

am6é1SA BITI KUDINI: 4™él8a bit ku-din, [245] K. 513, obv. 4, 
13, rv. 1, [312] K. 689, rv. 9. 

amé61 HN.GUR.A.NI, [387] S. 1045, rv. 8. 

amé1JU DRI, UDRUTI, BEL UDRI: 4™é! ud-ru, [309] K. 1021, 
rv. 4; 2m™61pé6] ud-ri, [444] K. 645, obv. 13; nisé ud-ru-u-ti, 
[121] K. 468, obv. 9,10; 2m¢l sabé ud-ru-ti, [506] K. 678, rv. 16, 17. 

amél BJ ? [353] 82-5-22, 169, obv. 9. 

amél1 GAR.NA.I (error for gar-ni=Sakni?), [480] R™ 72, obv. 2. 

am61GUGALLU (or ASARIDU?): 2™é! tig-gal, [562] K. 927, 
obv. 7. 

amé61GUR.RU.TU, [752] R™ 48, rv. 19. 

amél DA-I-KA-NI-E(?), [848] K. 508, obv. 4, rv. 2. 

amé1 DAN.DA.A.NU: (Kal-da-a-nu ?) [210] K. 647, rv. 5. 

amé1DI.SA.NU: [443] K. 579, obv. 6. 

amél ZTLLIRU: amél zi-il-li-ru, [281] K. 13, obv. 11. 

amé1 ZA.ZAK.KU, [464] K. 1519, rv. 4. 

amél ZUKU: amélzu-ku 8a 6kalli, [304] K. 533, oby. 6. 

amél] HU.KAK: amél hu-kak-me§, [212] K. 679, obv. 18. 

amé] HIALU: amélhj-ia-lu, [272] K. 4736, rv. 3; amé@l ha-a-lu... 
[849] K. 580, rv. 42; 2mél hi-ia-a-lu, [520] K. 680, obv.7; @mé! hi- 
a-lu-Su-nu, [804] K. 544, rv. 15; hi-’-a-lu, [412] 48-7-20, 115, 
oby. 18, 21; 2™¢! hi-’-la-a-nu, [269] K. 528, obv. 8; 2m61 hi-ia- 
la-ni-ia, [280] K. 10, obv. 22. 

salHARIMTU: sal kar-kit, [289] K. 312, obv. 8; s2! ha-ri-ma-te, 
[509] 81-2-4, 123, obv. 11. 

amél1 7]. KI.1.SU: [633] K. 1366, oby. 22. 

amél KI ZU: amél ki-zu-u-me§, [542] K. 114, obv. 14. 

amé] KU.Z1.Z1.1K.TU, [620] K. 1201, rv. 16. 

amél KT.ZU(?)BI.H, [346] Bu. 89-4-26, 9, rv. 6. 

amé] KAR.RA.NT, [103] K. 1189, obv. 9. 

amé1 KAR.KA.TIN, [322] K. 663, obv. 9. 

amé1 KALLAPANU: 2™él kal-la-pa-ni, [526] K. 628, rv. 1. 

amé1 KT TKUTU (=KITKITTU?2): 2mé¢l mar ki-it-ku-te-6, [414] 
R™ 77, obv. 11. 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS : 21 


amélJ,A: (error for APIN 2?) [845] K. 671, obv. 10. 

amé1 MAKTU, amél MAKTUTU: 2™é!l ma-ak-tu, [343] 83-1-18, 18, 
tv. 3; 2™6l ma-ak-tu, [434] Bu. 894-26, 163, obv. 20; 2mé6! ma- 
ak-ta-ta, [792] 83-1-18, 52, rv. 7, [794] 83-1-18, 150, rv. 12; ame! 
ma-ak-tt-tu, [343] 83-1-18, 18, obv. 13; 2mé! ma-ak-tt-te, [140] 
K. 518, oby. 6, rv. 5; 2m™¢! ma-ak-tt-u-te, [434] Bu. 89-4~26, 163, 
obv. 17, rv. 19. 

amél] MA.LA.ZIZ(2), [701] S. 1338, rv. 1. 

amél MAN: [873] Bu. 89-426, 20, rv. 7. 

amé1 MAR EKALLI: mar 6ékalli, [512] K. 858, obv. 5, 6, 14. 

amél MUBU: 4™é@lmu-bu-u, [467] S. 456, oby. 24; 2i5S¢ mu-bu, 
[506] K. 678, oby. 16 (cf. amél rab alani mu-bu, [506] K. 678, rv. 5). 

amé1 NA.U.A.NI, [585] K. 1098, rv. 2. 

sal NA.GIS.MA.MES, [103] K. 1189, obv. 8. 

amél NAKISU: 4m™él na-ki-su-te, [484] 81-7-27, 33, obv. 11. 

amél] SAKLU: 2™é!sa-ak-lu, [437] K. 168, rv. 15; 2mé6l sak-lu-te, 
[325] K. 571, obv. 10, 13, 16. 

amél SU.HI.IN.TU.SU, [564] K. 937, obv. 16. 

amél P].E? [812] 82-5-22, 93, rv. 20. 

amél PARITU: 2mél pa-ri-tu, [812] 82-5-22, 93, rv. 16. 

amé1 PARSAMU: 4™él par-Su-mu, [3] K. 492, rv. 3; 2™61 par-Su- 
me, [9] K. 618, obv. 15; améEpar-Sa-mu-ti, [168] K. 630, rv. 15; 
amél par-Sa-mu-te, [2] K. 183, obv. 16. 

amé] KASTI: amél gis-ban-me§, [267] K. 462, obv. 14, rv. 13, [754] 
K. 5457, obv. 10, 28; nisé ban, [617] K. 1167, obv. 10; nisé gis- 
ban, [617] K. 1167, rv. 3. 

amél KADU: amél ka-di-e, [462] K. 1374, obv. 10. 

amél] KADISTU: amélgig, [447] K. 821, rv. 13, [870] 81-24, 49, 
oby. 14. 

amél RAB ARDANT: 4™élrab nitag-me8, [208] K. 617, rv. 6 (2), 
[533] 83-1-18, 44, rv. 1, 12, 14, [633] K. 1366, rv. 15. 

amé1 RAB TANIBU: 2™élrab ta-ni-be, [114] K. 538, rv. 1, [876] 
Bu. 91-5-9, 144, oby. 12; rv. 4. 

amé1 RAB BIRTI: 2™élrab bir-ti, [422] R™ 215, obv. 8. 

amél RA.J.,AN-NU, [521] 83-1-18, 4, obv. 21. 

amél RAB.DIS.SI: (captain of 1,000?) Bu. 894-26, 162, rv. 7. 

(amél) RAB.BIR, [221] K. 175, oby. 12. 

amél RASU(?): 2mél ra-Sa-ni, [418] S. 1028, rv. 6; 2m¢lra-sa-a-ni, 
[518] 83-1-18, 27, rv. 7. 

amél RAB PILKANU: 4™€lrab pil-ka-ni, [91] K. 620, obv. 14, rv. 
4; rab pil-ka-ni, [512] K. 858, obv. 4. 

amél RADIANU, [102] K. 657, obv. 9, rv. 11. 

amél RIDU: amélyi-di-ia, [866] 81-24, 93, obv. 11, rv. 8; amél ri- 
di-ia-a-mes, [866] 81-24, 93, obv. 10; 2™é@lri-di-... , ibid., 
oby. 13. 

amél RJ-’-MI(?), [262] K. 607, rv. 9. 

amél RA-SI-TU, [848] K. 508, rv. 5. 


22 NotsEs on SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


amé1SA BITI II-B, [801] K. 13077, obv. 6. 

amé] SU.GAB.A.MES, [755] 83-1-18, 122, obv. 16; 2mélrab améel 
rab Su-gab-a-mes, [755] 83-1-18, 122, obv. 6. 

am61§8A PANI BiT KATA: [875] Bu. 89-426, 71, obv. 5. 

am61SA PANI MATT: (=8a pani ékalli) [467] S. 456, rv. 11. 

amé1 SABU, SIBUTU: 2™é1 gi-bu-u, [790] S. 1392, rv. 4; 2m61 §i- 
bu-tu, [202] K. 83, rv. 15, [210] K. 647, obv. 2, [576] K. 1009, oby. 2, 
rv. 9, [753] 82-5-2, 111, obv. 6. 

amél SAG.US(?).MES.TE, [175] K. 614, obv. 7. 

amél STHLU (SI’LU?2): 2™é! 8i-ih-lu, [154] K. 653, rv. 8. 

amé1§AT,.UM: (should it be Si-um, abarakku?) [433] 79-7-8, 138, 
rv. 9; [712] S. 1223, obv. 5. 

amé] SAMALLU: 4mél gagan-lal-me§, [65] K. 629, rv. 6. 

amél SA SA.GA.TE, [167] K. 582, obv. 17 (cf. sa-ga-a-te, [75] K. 
546, obv. 7). 

amé1 STMU: amélgam-mei, [99] K. 5466, rv. 12; tur-mes Sam- 
mes, [99] K. 5466, rv. 10; 2m¢61mes Sam-mes, [99] K. 5466, 
oby. 11. : 

amé1 SA SAPTI, or ZIKNI(?): amélga sa-mes, [144] K. 194, 
oby. 11. 

amé]1 SARNUPPU: 4mélga-A4r-nu-up-pu, [281] K. 13, rv. 12, 15, 18. 

amél SATAMMU: @mél ga-tam, [412] 48-7-20, 115, obv. 15, [437] K. 
168, oby. 6, 24, [476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 28, rv. 9, 13; 2m¢1§a-tam- 
meS, [437] K. 168, rv. 8; 2™61 §a-tam-u-ti, [437] K. 168, rv. 15. 

amé1 TARGUMANU: 4™éltar-gu-ma-nu, [387] S. 1045, rv. 5. 

amél TARBIANU: 4mél tar-bi-a-ni, [127] K. 616, rv. 4. 

amél TITK.EN.NA: 4mél tik-en-na, [327] K.517, obv. 2, [328] K. 638, 
obv. 2, [344] 83-1-18, 28, oby. 2, [438] K. 177, rv. 11, [447] K. 821, 
oby. 8, [540] K. 87, obv. 11, [542] K. 114, oby. 11; 2m¢1 tik-en-na- 
mes, [540] K. 87, obv. 4. 


A group of women in [527] K. 830 are described by terms 
that may be gentilic; but some rank or employment seems to me 
the more probable: 


sal AR-RA-BA-TI: obv. 8, 6, 9. 
salRAB.TI: (=rabati?) obv. 4. 
sal BI-NI-TI: obv. 5. 
salTU-’-A-TI: obv. 5. 

sal HU-LU-UT-TI: obv. 6. 
salNA.MIR.TI: rv. 2, 16. 


Vy) cS 


z LLL Us I, 


INDEX OF OFFICIALS 


[695] K. 1589, obv. 6. 

[551] K. 634, rv. 3. 

[256] K. 1202, obv. 4. 

[583] K. 1098, obv. 1. 

[759] D. T. 63, obv. 9. 
[145] K. 910, obv. 7. 

[476] 83-1-18, 5, obv. 21. 
[272] K. 4736, rv. 2. 

[795] Bu. 91-5-9, 107, obv. 8. 
[815] 48-7-20, 116, obv. 17. 
[745] 82-5-22, 141, rv. 4. 
[476] 83-1-18, 5, rv. 24. 


— Wf [566] K. 942, obv. 1. 


[147] K. 1170, rv. 10, 12. 
[385] Rm. 2, 6, obv. 14. 
[369] S. 1940, obv. 13. 
[438] K. 177, rv. 23. 
WWII), (333) K. 651, rv. 2. 
[442] K. 543, obv. 2. 
[795] Bu. 91-5-9, 107, obv. 11 


23 


THE ASSYRO-BABYLONIAN #76! TU. pitt. » 


Johns, ADD. II, p. 106, in discussing this officer, inclines to 
the view that he is not a temple official of any kind, but merely 
an occupant of temple lands, charged with certain dues to the 
temple. This opinion he would support by reference to royal 
endowments of the temples, in which connection the #™¢! TU. biti 
is sometimes mentioned. But this is inconclusive. Such con- 
nection with temple-endowments may imply nothing more than 
the modern pastor’s connection with the manse and glebe, or 
parsonage, or parish house. There is further the objection that 
in the Cultustafel of Sippara, also mentioned by Johns, the most 
important provisions for the reorganization of the temple services 
are made ki pi #™°! TU.biti, “according to the instructions of 
the TU.biti.’ Further, instead of being taxed for the main- 
tenance of the temple, provision is made for his support. He 
receives five shares of the daily receipts as against two shares 
received by the nas patri. In H. 167, K. 582, rv. 17, sqq., we 
may compare the daily allotment for a maSmaSu, four shares, 
and for a pirbinu, two shares. There is also an #™°!TU.biti 
II-u in the Cultustafel, a species of classification improbable in 
the case of mere tenants or taxpayers. Wealsofind #™°!TU.biti 
who do not appear to be connected with the temple, and are 
probably palace officials. In various places we find them spoken 
of in a way that suggests high rank. I do not see how to recon- 
cile the various data, except upon the theory that the TU. biti 
was a great official. Accepting the reading erébu for TU as 
the key to the solution, we may find him to be the #™*8a pani 
ni-ri-bi, as written syllabically in H. 875, Bu. 89-426, 71, 
obv. 7. This may be preferable to the reading érib biti cited - 
by Johns. That nirib rather than érib is used in reference to 
the entrance of a structure of any kind, is shown by numerous 
passages; cf. HWB., p. 127. That we must understand the officer 
in question to be something more than a mere porter or janitor, 
at least much more than is expressed by our modern conceptions 

24 


THe Assyro-BaBYLONIAN ?™°1 TU. siti 25 


of, and associations with these terms, will appear from the 
following data. 

In H. 512, K. 528, we have a letter that is suggestive. The 
writer does not state his office, but, though addressing the mayor 
of the palace, he does not call him “my lord.” Such mode of 
address clearly indicates that he is of higher rank than the 
recipient of the letter. 

Order of Nabtt-zér-lisir to the mayor of the palace: (Admit) 
m Naba-sarbt-ikisa; ™Zér-IStar, a chief repairer(?) (HWB., 527, 
Johns, ADD. II, p. 174; Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 532); ™ Ubba (one 
Arabian) (?) a palace employee (son of the palace); " Mfisura (one Egyp- 
tian) (?) a palace employee; the wife of the rab-mati (mayor of the 
palace); three sons of ™Nabt-zér-lisir; the wife of ™Nabti-sSarht- 
ikisa; two daughters of ™Nabt-zér-lisir, (and) his daughter-in-law. 

The 8th day of Tammuz. 

m Nabf-zér-lisir to (any) son of the palace. 

Total, fourteen persons admitted. 


It would seem that we here have an ancient pass ticket. The 
writer furnishes an order of admission to various persons who wish 
to enter the palace enclosure. Addressed primarily to the mayor 
of the palace, it is countersigned at the bottom, authorizing 
admission by any ‘‘son of the palace”’ who may be on duty at the 
gate when the ticket is presented. The note was written rapidly, 
the determinative amélu being omitted in some places; and 
hence there is uncertainty about the third and fourth names in 
the list. The plural sign is omitted throughout, and there is an 
error of two in the total as the letter stands in Harper’s text. It 
is to be noticed that six of the persons mentioned are members of 
the writer’s family, and one is the wife of the mayor of the palace 
to whom the order is addressed.’ Two persons are palace officials 
of some type. It would appear, then, that even persons prominent 
in the social circle of the palace required, if they had been outside 
its precincts, a special order for their re-admission, and that 
there was a person authorized to issue such tickets; perhaps an 
Emel panienirt bi: 

In H. 511, K. 654, we have a letter from a man of the same 
name, Nabt-zér-lisir, written, however, in the Babylonian 
script. He reports a number of things— garments, gold, silver, 
horses, sheep, etc.—for Abu-érba ‘‘of the king’s seed” and his 


1The cases cited by Johns, ADD. II, p. 157, make it appear that rab m&ti and rab 
6kalli are equivalent titles. 


26 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


wife, all of which seem to be consigned to his charge in the palace 
(dib-bu na-as-ru-ti 8a ™“Nabt-zér-lisir ina ékalli du- 
bu-ub). If this person is the writer of H. 512, we should have 
some further suggestion as to the rigid supervision he would 
exercise over everything entering the palace. 

H. 475, 83-1-18, 3, is a short but suggestive letter, probably 
from Ibassi-ilu, written in the Babylonian character: 

To the king, my lord, thy servant (Ibassi-ilu). May Nabft and 
Marduk be gracious to the king, my lord. Referring to Iddin-ahf, 
and Ina-kibi-Bél, his brother, the TU.biti: According as the letter 
of the king my lord gave orders to me, viz., send them those carpenters 
—now I will send them unto the king my lord. 


Apparently the two officers named have made a requisition for 
carpenters for some purpose, and the king has sent word to 
Ibas8i-ilu to supply the needed men. The inference is natural 
that alterations or repairs of the temple may have been under the 
supervision of the TU.biti, and this inference we shall find sup- 
ported by other data to be cited. The two officers named also 
appear in another important role; cf. infra H. 496. In the 
meantime we may compare the change in organization made by 
Joash, 2 Kings 12:4 sqq. It is to be observed there that so long 
as the chief priests, those officiating about the altar, handled the 
temple receipts, the house of Yahweh was in bad repair, and there 
were no available funds. Only when the matter was taken out of 
their hands and placed in charge of “the priests, the keepers of 
the threshold,” was the house put in proper condition. The 
system adopted, the subdivision and distribution of priestly func- 
tions, is an interesting parallel to the Assyrian method. Modern 
critical views upon the relative importance and the chronological 
priority of priest and Levite may require a slight modification. 
Some such assignment to special duty would be necessary in the 
nature of the case, even though all alike were called ‘the priests, 
the Levites.”’ 1 Chron. 9:17—29, will be reflected in the further 
study of the TU. biti. 

It would seem that the *™*!TU.biti was prone to make 
alterations in the temple interior without consulting anyone. The 
letter H. 493, 83-1-18, 13, is from ASur-risia, a priest of 
Ninib, who is not pleased with what has been done. The purport 
of this broken letter is clear enough. During the reign of the 
king’s father the TU.biti of Ninib had altered the golden orna- 


Tur Assyro-BAaBYLONIAN #™61 TU pitt Ar 


ments of the head of Ninib. At the time of writing, a company 
of workmen are employed in cutting strips of silver from the 
walls. The priest begs that the king will stop the work, and 
remarks that he himself has not been consulted, though he thinks 
himself “their brother” in such matters. With this we may 
compare H. 468, Rm. 217. Some Babylonians complain to the 
king that Hulala, a TU.biti of Sama’, has come down and 
carried off “a sky’ of gold” from Esagila. What action the 
priests took with reference to the matter is illegible. Some of 
the people are incensed, and say that they are no longer safe; 
that they will be made like the city of Gana. Such stripping 
of costly decorations from temples, to beautify Assyria, may have 
been one of the causes of Babylonian revolts from Assyrian 
domination. 

To these evidences of the authority of the TU.biti in the 
matter of repairing or altering the temples, we may add Rm. 
ITI, 105, a broken cylinder, published by Winckler, AOF. I, pp. 
256 sqq. It comes from the period of civil war in Babylonia, 
near the middle of the eighth century B. C. The inscription is 
of one Naba-Sum-imbi, who tells us that he is a niSakku and 
a TU.biti of Naba, as well as 8aka@ (Winckler, NIN.ku) of 
Borsippa. He records his restoration of the temple, which was 
damaged during the civil war. NabiSumiddina, a son of Daini- 
Naba, and a TU.biti of Naba, had made a night attack upon 
the temple in Borsippa, which Nabaisumimbi was holding with an 
armed force. The pious NabaSumimbi prayed to Nabi until 
sunrise, and as a result the enemy were beaten off. The success- 
ful combatant expresses his gratitude to Nabi by repairing the 
temple. 

Passing from this relation of the TU.biti to the repairs or 
alterations of the temple, we find another interesting feature of 
his office. Iddinabai and Ina-kibi-Bél, two officials already men- 
tioned in H. 475, appear in this important function in H. 496, 
K. 474. Ibassi-ilu writes to notify the king that the third of 
Elul is the day for the arraying of Bél, and that the opening of 
the great gate of the temple takes place upon the fourth. 


2AN. E., the usual mode of writing Sam6 in the letters. I doubt its being a plural of 
‘“*God,” as this would not be in accord with the epistolary usage. Moreover, Hsagila is the 
residence of Marduk, and we should hardly expect miscellaneous idols therein, judging 
from the complaint against Nabonidus in the Cyrus cylinder. Further, would an official of 
the Sama cult have use for images from the Marduk temple? He would, of course, have 
use for the gold. 


28  Novres on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


Iddinaba and Ina-kibi-Bél, the TU.biti are, as the king knows, 
the persons properly in charge of those ceremonies. The writer 
asks that they be sent, and that they may stand with him on the 
day of the opening of the gate. It is probable, then, that they 
were expected to pass upon the dress of the worshipers as well 
as that of Bél, when they stood with Ibassi-ilu. The position of 
Ibassi-ilu himself I do not know. In other letters of this group, 
HH. 496—501, we find him reporting that the king’s orders for 
beds, coronets for Ana, and other temple fittings, have been 
filled. Since the data already given show the TU.biti to be 
connected with such matters, and since in the letter under con- 
sideration Ibassi-ilu wishes two well-known threshold-keepers to 
stand with him on the great day of the opening of the gate of 
Bél, he may have been such an official himself. He may also be 
identifiable with one of two men of his name prominent in 
Thompson’s RMA. 

These suggestions concerning the functions of this official 
recall the Cultustafel. Col. V, 26 sqq., specifies, ‘and furni- 
ture of the interior’ according to the instruction of the two 
amé1TU.biti-MES.” The king’s share of the daily expense 
(cf. 2 Chron. 31:3) is the food for the priests, and “two shares 
according to the instructions of the two #™°!TU.biti;” then 
follows the list of clothing provided. Special garments are 
required for the seventh of Nisan, the tenth of Lyyar, the third 
of Elul, the seventh of Tisrit, the fifteenth of Marchesvan, and 
the fifteenth of Adar: altogether six festal robes each year given 
by the king. The interesting features in these details are the 
evident authority of the TU.biti, and the fact that the third of 
Elul requires a special festal garment for the servitor of Samai, 
as it does in the letter last quoted for the servitor of Bél. In H. 
388, 82-5-—22, 98 Mar-Istar also discusses ceremonies for Bél 
and Marduk upon the third of Elul, and the opening of the gate 
is mentioned (cf. Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 533). We may 
compare with these specifications for particular garments upon 
occasions of unusual significance, Jehu’s order: ‘‘ Bring forth 
vestments for the priests of Baal” (2 Kings 10:22). In the 
twenty-third verse is an order for special scrutiny of the 
assembly, that only duly qualified worshipers may be within. 


3U-na-at lib-bi is not translated by Jeremias, BAS. I, p. 275; cf. u-na-a-te hurasi 
kaspi sipirri parzilli is6é u abn6 6puS, from an ASurbanipal inscription, cited 
by R. F. Harper, Hepraica, X (1894), 198. 


THE Assyro-BABYLONIAN ?™°1 TU. Bit1 29 


This may be parallel to the request of Ibassi-ilu that the two 
wardens may assist him in the great gate upon the festal day. 
In Ezekiel’s code we observe that the priests must leave their 
vestments in the side chambers, not being allowed to come among 
the laity wearing their official apparel (Hzek. 42:13, 14; 44:19). 
The Levitical code (Exod. 38:4) will readily suggest itself ; 
but till we know precisely what the Babylonian or Assyrian robes 
were, we cannot undertake a comparative study of Jewish and 
Mesopotamian priestly apparel. But it seems clear from the 
cuneiform data so far that the great guardian of the threshold 
was responsible for the proper preparation of every one who 
would enter the temple. Only thus could the perfection of each 
rite be guaranteed (observe the conditions and reservations in 
the oracles of the Sun-god); and only thus could the temple be 
kept free from defilement. The post was no sinecure, and we 
shall see that the warden needed to know all that occurred within 
the temple as well as what was approaching from without. 

Our data also allow the conclusion that the average temple had 
two chief officers of this type; and this may imply two gates of 
the temple in daily use, besides the great gate opened upon spe- 
cial occasions when the presence of the king was expected. We 
observe that there are two threshold keepers in the Cultustafel; 
two are called for by Ibassi-ilu; in the narrative of NabiSumimbi 
two rival threshold keepers are warring for the possession of the 
temple; in the Cultustafel one of the two officers is an #™é! 
TU.biti II-u. We may venture the suggestion, then, that Ezek. 
44:1-4; 46:1-3, 8-12, give us some idea of the arrangement 
of a Babylonian temple (¢f. also 1 Chron. 31:14 for “the porter 
toward the east”) and of the movement of the throng upon a 
festal occasion, under the supervision of the TU.biti. Further 
questions concerning the arrangement of the Babylonian temple 
will be considered in a separate paper. For the modification of 
Ezekiel’s plan see Josephus, Ant., XV, II, 5, and 1 Chron. 9:17-28. 

As showing the familiarity of the TU.biti with all that 
occurred within the temple, the letters of Akkullanu are pecu- 
liarly interesting. This writer is shown in H. 539, K. 17, rv. 14, 
15, to be a TU. biti of the temple of ASur. In H. 16, K. 428, ina 
brief report to the king, too broken to be intelligible, he is asso- 
ciated with AdadSumusur, Arad-Ea, and I8tarsumére3.: This 
places his activity in Hsarhaddon’s reign, a fact further supported 


30 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


by H. 43, K. 122. His prominence will be more clearly realized 
when that of his associates is remembered. Their activity is 
noticeable in the excursus upon the Esarhaddon succession. 
The letters of Akkullanu, HH. 42-50, 429, 678-681, suggest 
that he is the proper person to address for information upon 
almost any matter connected with the temple, or its service. 

H. 42, K. 14, has been translated by Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, 
p. 518. Akkullanu reports that on the third of the month (Elul 
again?), Asur and Bélit went forth in peace and returned in 
peace. Goblets and drink for the king have been duly prepared, 
and rites which had ceased through neglect have been re-estab- 
lished; but the suraru-wine for the month Tisrit has not been 
provided for Asur. The chief vintner, his deputy, and his 
secretary have alike neglected the matter. 

The next letter, H. 48, K. 122, is the most interesting of all. 
Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, p. 513, has given a translation, and 
Johns gives a general view of it, ADD. II, p. 105, and a com- 
plete translation ABLCL., p. 377, changing his former view 
slightly. In both he differs somewhat from Van Gelderen. I am 
not sure that the reverse of the letter is perfectly understood. 
But the bearing upon the duties of the TU.biti is in no wise 
affected. In the first part of the letter, he replies to an inquiry of 
the king informing him of the governors, cities, and provinces that 
have neglected to send the regular offerings to ASur. Nineteen 
are named; and as several of these are certainly provinces out- 
side of Assyria itself, we may have a sidelight upon the unwil- 
lingness of the Hebrew prophet to see his king maintain either 
hostile or dependent relations with Assyria.‘ 

The reverse of the tablet reports the facts concerning two 
priests (Van Gelderen, ‘“scribes’”), who had been consecrated 
by Sennacherib, but had lost their positions through some cere- 
monial mishaps, “not great sins.” One is ‘‘priest of the bake- 
room,”* shaved when he was young. The other is chief of the 
larder, or almost a ‘“‘head-waiter”’ for the temple tables. Hach 
seems to have been deposed for some inattention to proper shaving 


4Compare the frequent complaints concerning rebels in the cuneiform historical 
inscriptions. ‘They had had not sent to inquire after my peace—they scorned the 
solemn oaths by the great gods.”’ 


5 With this priest of the bake-house, compare the little cooking chambers flanking 
Ezekiel’s temple (after Babylonian models (?)), 46: 19-24, and the chambers and those in 
charge of things baked in pans, 1 Chron. 9:31; 23:28, 29; Lev. 2:5-7; 6:21; 7:9. 


THE Assyro-BABYLONIAN ®™°1 TU. Bit1 31 


(ina la Sab-sa-su-te la gal-lu-ub).° Thus apart from the 
information the letter gives concerning the TU.biti, it is of 
interest as suggesting some exacting ritual of the Assyrian 
priesthood. Apparently, cuttings of the “corners of the head 
and beard” were seriously regarded. As for the TU.biti, he 
is evidently expected to know the past history of the temple 
as well as current events. One would infer his familiarity with 
the temple library, or record room. The record of the neglect 
of stated sacrifices by certain governors recalls the frequent com- 
plaints of the Hebrew narratives, and the list of nobles bringing 
offerings,’ in Numb. 7. 

H. 185, K. 1396 is interesting after this report concerning 
delinquent governors. Nababélsunu tells Asurmudammik that he 
has been wronged by Akkullanu. The latter has obtained twelve 
or thirteen mana of silver from ASurmudammik, for the breaches 
of the shrines of ASur and Bélit. Nababélsunu tells his friend to 
make a memorandum of it, and to plan for its recovery. It 
would seem that Akkullanu, when charged with repairing the 
temple, was inclined to somewhat vigorous measures for securing 
the necessary funds. 

H. 44, K. 604 gives us no information. Akkullanu asks the 
king for a reply to a previous letter. In H. 45, K. 691 he 
announces that he will “bring to Dilbat”(?) an axe,° pilakku 
that has been called for. It is probable that some sacred symbol, 


6 For shaving the head as part of the ceremony of consecration to the priesthood, com- 
pare Agurbanipal, L3 12,13. Observe the many cylinder-seals and reliefs in which a shaved 
person is brought before a god, e. g., the DeClercq collection. The appendix to Curtiss, 
PSR., 268, by Wm. Hayes Ward, gives a number of illustrations. Notable are figures 3, 7, 10, 
17,19. A fully appareled priest wears a queue, sometimes plaited, sometimes turned up - 
behind, or decorated. As an unclean person must keep from the altar in general Semitic 
usage, we must regard these scenes as illustrating consecration or purification. Some of 
the figures may represent females, but some are certainly shaved males. Compare the 
shaving of the Levites when consecrated, Numb. 8:7; the shaving of the head of the 
Nazirite as a mode of cleansing, Numb. 6:9, 18; cf. Acts, 18:18; 21:24; shaving of a leper 
for cleansing, Lev. 14:8, 9; 13:33; Egyptian shaving of one coming to court, Gen. 41:14; 
the shaving of Egyptian priests mentioned by Herodotus, the prohibition in the case of 
Hebrew priests, Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Deut. 21:12; Ezek. 44:20. On general subjects see 
A. R. S. Kennedy, DB. I, p. 536; Carslaw, DB. III, p. 478. 


7 These duties of Akkullanu suggest the inventory clerk, and Ezekiel’s familiarity with 
all costly merchandise (Ezekiel 27:1-25). Was Ezekiel a priestly threshold keeper, becoming 
in consequence, familiar with all kinds of articles likely to be brought before a god? 


8We may think of the double axe, Greek méAexvs as contrasted with the ynuuredéxxov, 
now familiar from excavations of the Cretan Labyrinth, which bears traces of Semitic 
influence; the double axe (or mace) in the hand of IStar(?) on some seals (Ward, appendix 
G, to Curtiss, PSR., fig. 7) ; the lance, as emblem of Ninib, as evidenced by kakkab Sukudu, 
kakkab tartabu, and the upright lance upon his (?) altar, DeClercq, 308, 371, 373; the 
double trident (thunderbolt (?)) in the hand of Marduk when assailing Tiamat in various 
reliefs and seals; the bow of ASur in reliefs and historical inscriptions and O. T. reference 
to worship of military emblems, Hab. 1:16. 


32 NortTeEs on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


or piece of temple furniture, is here referred to. Both letters 
have been translated by S. A. Smith, AL., and Delitzsch, BAS. I, 
p-. 222; IT, p. 30. 

In H. 429, Rm. 69, translated by Van Gelderen, BAS. IV, 
p. 530, Akkullanu is again concerned with the decorations of 
the temple. A golden tablet, a peace offering from the king, 
is missing. Akkullanu reports that it has been seen in the 
possession of a jeweller(?), and that he will institute a rigid 
examination of the man before a scribe. That the ornament 
came safely to the temple from the king’s messenger is doubted, 
and this person should be questioned. Perhaps the same subject 
is discussed in the badly broken H. 592, K. 1116. Of the four- 
teen original lines, not one is left entire. We can recognize 
some reference to a golden tablet and a jeweller. 

In H. 47, K. 979 Akkullanu announces libations and royal 
sacrifices at Tarbisi, and asks the king if he should attend them 
(cf. RFHarper, Hepraica, X, 1894, p. 196), adding that the 
king cannot complain this time of not being duly notified. In 
H. 48, K. 1019, and H. 49, K. 1168, the breaks are too serious 
to allow any connected narrative ; both, however, may refer to 
the same subject. In H. 48, Akkullanu says: ‘‘Regarding the 
priests of the city of Assair(?), about whom the king sent to me, 
I will myself inquire of some priest . . . .”” H. 49 is much longer, 
and begins, after greetings, ‘“‘As to that priest about whom the 
king, my lord, sent to me, he made complaint from his heart three 
times on that day.’’ The next twenty lines are too fragmentary 
to yield any connected sense. About the middle of the reverse 
we find instructions for ritual on certain days; on the tenth day 
at noon a censer; on the eleventh and twelfth, great sacrifices 
(niké). There follows a report concerning a complaint made by 
the priest of the Temple of Seven at Nineveh, about whom he had 
sent word to his lord the king. The son of some priest of the 
Temple of Sama’ has been asked for; his name, Akkullanu says, 
is Zari, son of Nadinapal. 

The next letter of this group, H. 50, K. 1242, broken also, 
refers to sacrifices before which Akkullanu stands. Sumerian 
ritual titles are discernible, and tamarti of Sin and Samai are 
mentioned. HH. 678, 680, 681, are too fragmentary to be of 
value, but H. 679, 83-1-18, 61 is interesting as being a purely 
astrological report. Star movements are discussed at some 


‘ Tue Assyro-BABYLONIAN ?™61 TU piri 33 


length, though nearly half the letter is broken away. We may 
question if the writer is the same Akkullanu as above. Bezold 
thinks there are two. Yet knowing the dominance of astrology 
in Assyrian thought and ritual, it would seem that all the learned 
classes and priestly authorities should have some general knowl- 
edge of the subject, as it would be impossible otherwise for them 
properly to perform their daily functions. This is supported by 
Thompson’s Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers. Nos. 
81, 259 are from a rab dup-sar; Nos. 109, 266, from a rab 
A. BA.; No. 160 from a dup-Sar; No. 58 from the rab A.ZU; 
No. 83, 115F, 183, 243, from a maS-mas. There is a fair pre- 
sumption then, in favor of some astrological knowledge upon the 
part of the TU.biti. It is practically confirmed by H. 401, 83-1- 
18, 30, in which the king writes to Zéru’a and the TU.MES. biti 
of Dar-ilu, that the month Adar has an excess, and that they must 
adjust its calendar. The various astrological reports from Akkul- 
lanu in Thompson’s collection, and the two other similar reports in 
HABL, need not then be assigned to some other than our 
temple warden, as Bezold conjectures. 

Whatever we may conclude as to the warden Akkullanu’s con- 
nection with astrology, the passages cited indicate that the 
TU.biti was a very powerful official. That his position was one 
of great honor may be fairly inferred from the case of Nabisum- 
imbi, previously cited. A nisakku, and saka of Borsippa, he 
would have us know that he is also a TU.biti of Nabi. Per- 
haps it is for the purpose of maintaining his right to this position 
that he battles with Nababélsunu. Akkullanu’s activities and 
associations suggest high honors. We may add from Nergl. 13, 
“Nabésumukin, the TU.biti of Nabi and satammu’ of Ezida, 
spoke to the king Neriglissar thus: Give me Gigitum, your 
virgin daughter to wife.” 

Some further texts must be noticed. In the large inscription 
of Merodach-baladan II one Ina-kibi-Bél is mentioned as a 
bazanu. Is this the person above mentioned as a TU.biti by 
Tbassi-ilu in HH, 475, 496? For bazanu isa term sometimes 


9The Satammu kept the Sutummu or “storehouse,” to which the TU.biti con- 
signed valuable property, and from which the k6pu drew the supplies which he loaned out 
when handling the temple revenues. Compare the §4-tam bit u-na-ti on Boundary 
stone 103, col. IV, 9, with the u-na-a-ti of the temple in Note 3, supra, and the amél 
S4-tam of the 2™6l17TU.biti of Marduk in VA. 451 (KB. IV, p.172). The term seems 
Babylonian rather than Assyrian. In Strassmaier’s contracts we sometimes find the 
Satammu furnishing grain and money from the temple stores. He is occasionally men- 
tioned in connection with the képu. 


34 Notes on SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


applied to the TU.biti. In H. 65, K. 629 (JEL., p. 153.), Naba- 
Sumiddin writes to the mar-Sarru. The functions shown in the 
letter are those we have already observed. The writer announces 
that the temple of Naba will be opened on the third of Iyyar. 
The couch of the god will be consecrated (for this ceremony 
see K. 164, BAS. II, p. 635); the god will return on the 
fourth; sacrifices are announced, and the route of the sacred pro- 
cession is given. All may enter the temple who bring one ka of 
food. The writer calls himself the bazanu of the temple of 
Naba. In H. 366, 82-5-22, Nergal-Sarrani writes of a like 
event; the temple opening on the third of the month and the god 
returning on the fourth to the couch. The bazanu’s connection 
with the ceremonies is noted. In H. 419, 83-1-18, 24, we have 
a joint letter from the Sangtii II-u and the hazanu. In H. 49, 
83-1-18, 13, the hazanu of the temple is expected to aid in stop- 
ping certain alterations. The other bazanu passages in the 
RF Harper letters refer generally to city officials. Such may be 
observed in the historical inscriptions and in the Tell el Amarna 
letters (cf. Zimmern, ZA. VI, 248). Winckler, AOF., 246, 
argues that the title was originally that of the prefect of a village 
or petty district. But the ideogram for hazanu, NU.BANDA, 
is common in early cattle accounts in the HE. A. Hoffman collec- 
tion (Radau, HBH.). The hazanu there is only a common herds- 
man. In early Boundary stones, IT R. 43, III R. 41, the hazanu 
is a household officer. The inference is that the word hazanu has 
no restricted technical sense; that it is merely “overseer” (ZA. 
VI, p. 349), and can in consequence be applied to various func- 
tionaries. The inference finds support in the Jewish use of the 
borrowed term. Four hazans are distinguished in Jewish literature ; 
(1) the hazan, or mayor, of a city; (2) the hazan, or sheriff of a 
court of justice; (3) the bazan of the temple (the “porter” of 
1 Chron. 10:26—29) who had charge of the robes, treasures, and 
utensils and who aided the priests in robing and disrobing (ef. 
the Arabic hazin, ‘‘treasure-keeper’’); and (4) the bazan of the 
synagogue, whose functions may be regarded as a survival of 
those of the temple hazan. (For particulars see, Jewish Eney- 
clopedia, VI, pp. 284 sqq.) 

Considering the very definite character of the reports we have 
examined, coming from the TU.biti or hazanu, we may fairly 
conjecture, when we find such reports of the order of services 


Tue Assyro-BABYLONIAN 2™°1 TU pitt 35 


coming from one who does not mention his office, that the writer 
is the official under consideration. Thus we may conclude that 
Nabipasir who writes H. 134, K. 1234, and Nabaikudurusur, writer 
of H. 858, K. 822, are such officers. 

Compare with the data so far given the account given by 
Curtiss, (PSR., chap. XII) of the sacred classes in modern 
Syria. ‘‘In addition to the care that the minister takes of the 
shrine he is repository of such legends as may exist with respect 
to the origin of the shrine, and the life of the saint whose names 
and deeds are celebrated.”” This suggests the Cultustafel. 

In S* 77, 4, we read of an akil kisalluhi, or ‘‘vakeel of 
the anointed ground.’”’ Perhaps this is the early equivalent of 
MW biti. 

The passages cited inevitably raise the question, What was 
the relation of this officer to the Sangaii? For we have found a 
Sangti complaining of alterations made by a TU.biti. Akkul- 
lanu gives us nearly all the information derivable from the letters 
concerning the Sangt. The latter appears the less conspicuous 
personage because the matters treated do not fall within the 
range of his official activity. He may have been influential in 
popular intrigues, as he is mentioned in two or three reports of 
governors and military officers, and it was deemed advisable to 
place two sons of Hsarhaddon in the most powerful priestly 
offices of the empire. While the TU.biti clearly super- 
vises the general procedure within the temple, we must not 
conclude that the Sanga had no field of his own in which he 
was final authority. We must regard him as the personage 
who officiated at the great altar upon the solemn occasions when 
the keen-eyed and fully-appareled TU.biti stood in the great 
gate and carefully inspected the incoming worshipers. The reli- 
gious texts published suggest the domain of the Sangt. 

From the evolutionary standpoint both officials are certainly 
descended from the primitive custodian” of the sacred shrine, 
the Arabian kahinu, the Hebrew kohen. The cuneiform litera- 
ture affords some data for the history of their development. 
Neither is known so far in the older inscriptions. We have in 
them the term patesi, sometimes translated ‘“priest-king,” and 
comparable with the Semitic sheikh of a petty district, who may 


10Such custodian appears on some very early seals. Ward, PSR., Appendix G, fig. 14, 
gives a very interesting case: a porter guards a two-leaved door, while a worshiper stands 
before the god within. 


36 NotTEs ON SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


also be the custodian of its sanctuary. This translation has been 
fairly questioned. Budge and King (AKA. I, p. xvii; ef. Jensen, 
KB. III, 1, 66) would interpret its use by early Assyrian kings 
as indicating their subjection to Babylonian secular domina- 
tion. It may as plausibly be construed as showing that there 
was then little religious differentiation from Babylonia; and 
Lehmann (BAS. II, p. 614) has shown that the early rulers of 
Shirpurla use it regularly, whether they were independent or 
vassals. Moreover, in Assyria they are patesis of gods, not of 
other princes. In the Hammurabi period the patesis are clearly 
a sacred class. In LJH., 42, we read of one man libbi m&aré 
baré, and four libbi maré patesi; in LIJH., 17, we have two 
men libbi maré patesi and one libbi maré baré. This pair- 
ing “the sons of the seers” with “the sons of the patesis” 
recalls the seers or “sons of the prophets” and ‘‘the priests 
the Levites’’ of the O.T. In LIJH., 43, we learn of a sharp 
protest made at the drafting of a patesi for corvée service. 
The recipient of the letter is given to understand that the 
patesis are exempt from such service. We must understand 
this exemption to be upon religious grounds; we cannot 
suppose that one secular governor had seized his confrére for 
corvée service. Compare Ezra, 7:24. In LJH.,91 a sangt 
of Anunit is included as one of the patesis of Anunit. This form 
of statement makes us think that the Sangi is appearing as a 
subdivision of the patesis. In LIH., 38, a patesi in the service 
of one officer wishes to be transferred to the employ of another. 
The king directs that an exchange be effected and that the 
employer see that the patesi’s field is properly cultivated for 
him (ef. Neh. 13: 10-13). This is extremely interesting, as sug- 
gesting that the patesi class was not yet concentrated at a few 
great temples, but that many were household priests like Micah’s 
Levite in Judges 17. It would also appear that Hammurabi is 
endeavoring to control the distribution of the patesis; the LIH. 
letters show also that he looked after the temple revenues. The 
grouping of patesis with seers, baraiti, by Hammurabi, should 
recall the references to visions and a seer-goddess by the patesi 
Gudea, Cylinder A. 

This same distribution of the patesi class is shown us a thou- 
sand years later. Boundary stone No. 105, III R. 41, records the 
sale of a piece of land. In the list of curses we find one that 


THE AssyrRo-BABYLONIAN #™6!1 TU siti 37 


is unique: an imprecation upon him who shall ignore this deed of 
sale and present the land to any god, or king, or patesi of aking, 
or patesi of a Saknu, or patesiof a bittémi. Remembering 
how frequently we find the kings seizing lands and setting them 
aside for various temple servitors, we may suspect that patesis, in 
the days of Marduk-nadinabi, B. C. 1115, were not universally 
admired, and that they were to some extent household priests, as 
the data above would suggest: and that the term in the boundary 
stone is still a general one for shrine functionaries of any kind. 
Furthermore, we find documents of the later periods showing 
sacred personalities holding two or three leading offices: as Nabt- 
Sumimbi, already cited, is both nisakku and TU.biti. And the 
ability of a man to establish his household shrine and priest is 
shown by documents like Bu. 88-5-18, 704, cited by Johns, 
ABLCL., p. 223, in which Nir-ilisu dedicates to a god one SAR 
of land, and decrees that Pi-sa-Samas shall be its priest, Nurilisu 
himself laying no claim to the priesthood. This is an excellent 
parallel to the case of Micah (cf. Nbd. 773). One or two passages 
in the religious texts may support this view of the patesi as a 
religious functionary instead of a secular ‘“‘deputy.’’ Marduk is 
the well-known masmas ilani: the incantations of the maSmas 
ilani are sometimes called for: in his name evil is adjured to 
leave. But in DES., p. 168, “HE” 41, Ea tells Marduk, “perform 
for him the incantation of 1!" pa-te-si-MAH.” In DES., p. 34, 
“By it Pa-te-si-GAL.ZU.AB be thou exorcised.” Is the 
“Great Purifier,’ Marduk, the PATESI.MAH? The second 
reference seems to be to Ha. We may now fairly ask if PA. 
TH.SI is not simply aklu-++teménu-+karnu (see Brinnow, 
under signs) “the horned official of the platform.” On ancient 
seals (e. g., Ward, PSR., Appendix G) the priest wears a horned 
cap. In the O. T., and in the cases considered by Evans, Myce- 
nean Tree and Pillar Cult, the horns are on the altar, or over 
the sacred portal. 

In Babylonia the title patesi persists to the end, the title 
TU.biti appearing as early as the time of the Cultustafel. But 
since the restoration described there is ‘‘according to the instruc- 
tions of the two TU.biti,” and since this office tended, as we 
shall see, to be hereditary, we may fairly conclude that the office 
existed, and that its functions were fixed before the destruction of 
the temple by the Suteans, several centuries earlier. It may even 


88 Notes on SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


date back to the days of Hammurabi, since we have found the 
Sangai known at that time. The TU.biti appears in other 
familiar documents of the time of Nabipaliddin, to be mentioned 
presently in connection with the hereditary character of the office. 

But in Assyria the title patesi soon disappears. It is claimed 
by Irisum, B. C. 2000, who is called centuries later a Sang of 
Agur (Scheil, Rec. Trav., XXI, 1900) ; by Samii-Adad and Isme- 
Dagan, B. C. 1850-1800. Tiglathpileser I. accords these two the 
same title, VIII, 2, 8. Pudt-ilu, B. C. 1350, calls himself 
issakku of ASur, the equivalent of patesi. Adad-nirari, his 
son, calls himself isSakku of ASur in one inscription, and sanga 
siru of Bél on a stone tablet; he is in this inscription the son of 
Puditilu the Saknu of Bél, issakku of ASur; grandson of Bél- 
nirari the Sanga of ASur, great-grandson of Asur-uballit, whose 
Sangatu was glorious. Can this varied terminology mean that 
the chief priests of different divinities originally bore different 
titles, arising from the different rites prominent in the cults? 
Sangti is, up to this point, reserved for the servitor of ASur or 
Istar. Asur-ré3-isi, 1140 B. C., is Sanga of Asur, and gives the 
same title to Mutakkil-Nusku and Asurdan, his predecessors. 
Tiglathpileser I. claims the office. ASurnasirpal, in his various 
inscriptions, is Sangt of different gods; Asur, Istar, Bél, Ninib, 
and Nergal (see AKA., pp. 182, 189, 198, 205, 209; Annals I, 
25). In K. 868 he is iSipu na’du nibit Ninib. Evidently 
he has become “commander of the faithful” of all the more 
prominent cults. The Sargonids emphasize their Sangtitu of 
Istar. But Sargon himself, evidently a religious reactionary, 
revives the phraseology of Pudu-ilu 600 years before. In the 
Nimrud inscription he is Saknu of Bél, isSakku of ASur: he 
repeats this on numerous bricks. This is certainly irreconcilable 
with the theory that patesi or issakku, when used by an Assyrian 
king, implies his subjection to Babylon. In some of these brick 
inscriptions we have his title more fully: Sakan +!" Bél, isSakki 
flu Agur Sakkanak #"Naba u "Marduk. This supports 
the suggestion that the chief priests of certain gods may have had 
distinctive religious titles. The Sakkanakku of Babylon would 
appear to have been the vicegerent of Naba and Marduk. 

We may wonder if these royal claims indicate functional 
activity, or mere honorary headship. We do not hear of an 
Assyrian king claiming for himself the honor of TU.biti. He 


Tue Assyro-BABYLONIAN ?™61 TU siti 39 


would think of himself as officiating at the altar instead of “keep- 
ing the charge of the house.” But Neriglissar, placed on the 
throne by priestly intrigue, tells us that he is the son of BélSum- 
iskun, the wise prince, the perfect hero, nasir massarti 
Esaggil u TIN.TIR.KI. (Budge, PSBA., 1888, cylinder; 
col. I, 11-13.) Is the king boasting of his descent from a 
TU.biti? In Assyria, did the temple officials, who, in their let- 
ters, frequently used the phrase: “We keep the charge of the 
king our lord,”" think of the king as a Sangi whom they 
assisted? Esarhaddon’s favorite oracle, we know, was that of 
Istar of Arbela, sometimes spoken of as Bélit parsi. He 
declares that IS8tar of Arbela is a goddess, ra’imat Sangitia. 
In opening salutations AdadSumusur (and occasionally others) 
frequently writes, after greeting the king, a-na pi-kit-te 8a 
Bélit parsi Sul-mu a-dan-nis. Does he think of the king 
as the great Sangi of IStar, and therefore include in such salu- 
tations “those who kept the charge of the house” of Istar? Ques- 
tions like these are natural in connection with the subject, but 
answers just now would be premature. 

Reference has been made to the efforts of various kings to 
guarantee the maintenance of certain temple officials by freeing 
certain lands or persons from royal taxation, the revenues being 
instead devoted to the temple service, and the produce of the 
lands going into the temple stores, when it was more than could 
be immediately consumed. The term zakku, ‘‘dedicate,’’ secures 
this exemption from secular demands. The Chronicler may be 
copying this scheme in 2 Chron. 31:13-19. Exemptions for 
sacred classes are specified in Ezra 7:24. But the records of 
such royal grants raise the question of heredity, the land so con- 
secrated being sometimes spoken of as previously consecrated by 
a former king, and later reverting to the royal domain. An 
example may be cited in K. 4467, published by Johns, ADD., I, 
714. Meissner, UV-AG., 1903, III, p. 6 sqq., collates it with K. 
1989, and 83-1-18, 425, and Bu. 91-5-9, 193. Sargon narrates 
in this deed his restoration of land originally set aside by Adad- 
nirari to supply the granaries of Asur. Ninety-five iméru of 
land in the fields of the city of the TU.biti, in the campus of 
Nineveh, are reconsecrated. The land is given in charge of the 


11 The frequency of the similar expression in the Old Testament should be noticed: Gen. 
26:5; Exod, 6:13; Numb. 9:19; 27:23; 1 Chron. 9:27; 2 Chron. 8:14. 


40 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


sons of former temple servitors. Fifteen iméru of ground are 
set aside for the rab akalé, “‘like the field of the city of the 
TU.biti—with the field of the governor of Dar-Sarrakin I 
counted it—fifteen I thus consecrated.” This placing of the lands 
of the temple servitors upon the same footing as the land of the 
governor should be compared with Ezekiel’s land system, 45:1-8, 
and endowed state offices in the Harran census. 

Since the benefice is given to the descendants of former bene- 
ficiaries, and the TU.biti are spoken of as though owning or 
dwelling in a city, or definite territory, and since Akkullanu, in 
H. 48, speaking of a deposed priest, then dead, recommends his 
son for the vacancy, the fact of heredity in sacred offices, and 
the existence of Levitical cities, is clearly shown.” In this con- 
nection we have some interesting matter. VA. 208 of the Berlin 
Museum (KB. IV, p. 94) is from the 22d year of Nabapaliddin. 
In it Béliddin, son of Naba-zér-iddin, the TU.biti of #4" La-ga- 
ma-al and Sakti of Dilbat deeds to his second son his right to 
the entrance fees of flesh of different kinds. In another docu- 
ment, much damaged, from the 20th year of Nabiapaliddin, 
we find Nabapaliddin, son of Abua, grandson of Akar-Naba, 
the TU.biti, complaining that he has received but part of 
the land held by his fathers. His petition in the case is 
granted (KB. IV, p. 92). A very interesting case of transfer 
appears centuries later. It suggests that the hereditary line 
of temple wardens may have been threatened with extinction. 
A TU.biti adopts a son, and transfers to him a right to 6 ka 
of food and 6 ka of drink, a fourth interest (zittu) in the 
flesh of offered oxen, and an interest in the table of the god 
(zitti pa8sairi). This document is dated in the first year of 
Barzia (VA. Th. 123, 124; KB. IV, p. 296). We should not 
infer that the entire TU.bit-u-tu is transferred by this docu- 
ment, for we have another, showing partial sale. It comes from 
Uruk, from the time of the Seleucidae, (KB. IV p. 313). The 
seller holds the TU.bit-u-tu of Bél, or at least a one-sixth 
interest in it. He sells for one mina five shekels of silver ‘one- 
sixth of the day”? upon the 16th, 17th, and 18th days, forever, 
with all right to the purchaser to do as the seller would have done, 
with the receipts of the ‘‘sixth of the day.” As the document is 


12This question of the city I discuss in “‘The Semitic City of Refuge,’’ Monist, October, 
1905. 


THE AssyRo-BABYLONIAN ?#™¢1 TU pitt 41 


dated the 27th of Nisan, and no month is named in connection 
with ‘the 16th, 17th, and 18th days,” we may infer that those days 
of each month are implied. Comparing this with the announce- 
ment of NabaiSumiddin, already noticed, H. 65, K. 629 that the 
entrance fee upon the festal day will be one ka of food, we may 
perceive how very profitable the wardenship of a large temple 
might be. The document just cited is one of the earliest cases 
of simony or speculating in pew-rents on record. But though 
heredity in sacred offices is shown by the documents cited, they 
also show that it was subject to modifications, as in Palestine. 
The above transfers of TU. bit-u-tu may be compared with trans- 
fers of other sacred offices. Thus, in the fourteenth year of 
Nabaina’id, 84-2-11, 61, ABR. II, p. 20, Nabibalatsuikbi 
bequeaths to one son the “dagger-bearership” (GIR. LAL-u-tu) 
or position of official slaughterer in the temple of Hsarra, and to 
another son the income of the shrine of Papsukal in the temple of 
Bélit-Samé-ersiti. Im MAP. 41, we find in the days of Rim-Sim 
a suit involving the right to five days in the year in the temple of 
Nannar, sixteen in the temple of Bélit, and eight in the shrine 
of Gula. In Bu. 91—-5-9, 2175 A is discussed the right to act as 
Satammu, for six days in the month, in the temple of Samai. 
And such priestly offices could be held by women, or transferred 
to them: the ‘‘dagger-bearership’”’ above mentioned Nabi-balatsu- 
ikbi states he had formerly assigned to his mother. We may 
conjecture that during her tenure of the benefice a hireling per- 
formed the work. Such rights to temple receipts on certain days 
may lie behind the rotation service of the Levites in the Chroni- 
cler’s scheme. 


THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION. 


In the preceding index the term mar-Sarru was not included, 
as it was not considered to need special explanation. But a care- 
ful examination of the numerous occurrences of the term suggested 
important bearings upon a mooted historical question. Perhaps 
this Sargonid title had in the later period a significance which it 
did not have in the earlier. In its technical sense it is considered 
a compound noun. That it has such special or restricted 
sense when used incidentally or in formulae of salutation, must 
be conceded for the sake of intelligibility. To translate ‘‘ Peace 
to the king my lord: peace to a son of the king,” when the king 
has several sons, would be too indefinite. It must be that “the 
king’s son” xat’ ée€oxnv (Johns, ADD. II, p. 182, “crown prince ;” 
cf. Lehmann, Samassumukin II, p. 108) is meant by mar- 
Sarru in such salutations. 

In H. 3, K. 492, and H. 365, Bu. 91-5—9, 141, Adadsumusur 
mentions one mar-Sarru, without qualifying additions. . Nabt- 
sumiddin, of the same period (JEL., pp. 131, 153), writes in H. 
65, K. 629 to the m&ar-sSarru. At a later time, in H. 66, K. 
1017, he knows of two princes of such rank, with distinctive 
qualifying epithets. Nabtarabiabé in H. 175, K. 614, writes to 
the mar-Sarru concerning the shortcomings of the Sidonians. 
This suggests Esarhaddon’s reign. Isdi-Naba, H. 187, K. 589, 
and H. 189, K. 1048, addresses letters to the mar-Sarru. Heis 
probably to be assigned to the reign of Esarhaddon (cf. JEL., 
p. 156). In H. 108, K. 519, Arad-Nana, court-physician of Esar- 
haddon’s time, writes in his salutations, Sulmu adanniS ana 
mar-Sarri, Winckler’s theory (AOF. II, p. 185) that Asur- 
mukinpalé’a is meant here, because that prince is mentioned by 
name by Arad-Nana in H. 109, K. 532, can hardly be accepted; 
the reason is insufficient. There is no evidence that ASurmukin- 
palé’a was ever crown prince. Winckler does not seem to recog- 
nize any technical sense for mar-Sarru, nor the fact that it is 
specifically applied to two princes who are also called by name, 

42 


THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION 43 


while the other sons of Hsarhaddon are mentioned by name only. 
The niceties of Assyrian official etiquette must be given due con- 
sideration. In H. 430, Rm. 72, we have a brief letter written 
by a mar-Sarru. It does not seem to occur to him that any 
confusion would result. Surely no other son of the king could write 
as mar-Sarru. In H. 152, K. 1101+ K. 1221, Sarruna’id com- 
plains to the mar-Sarru that his property has been seized by 
one who is neither the king’s agent nor the agent of the mar- 
Sarru. In H. 404, 81-24, 62 the welfare of the mar-Sarru 
and his brothers is prayed for; compare like expressions for 
Asurbanipal and his brothers in H. 453, K. 948. In H. 614, K. 
1152, some one is asserted to be called by Sin and Samas 
a-na mar-Sarru-u-te ™®* Assar. 

A number of these citations belong indisputably to the reign 
of Esarhaddon. We have evidence, then, that for some time 
during that reign one son of the king, and but one, held the 
official rank of mar-Sarru. 

Does mar-Sarru, or mar-Sarru rabi, as “crown prince,” 
designate the eldest son of the king, as some translate (e. g. 
Johnston, JAOS. XX, p. 248; cf. contra, Lehmann, Samassum- 
ukin, II, p. 108), or does rabti imply precedence rather than 
seniority? Sennacherib’s name is suspected to refer to his being a 
younger son; yet Hunni in H. 216, K. 1062, says, ‘‘Peace to 
Sennacherib, the mar-Sarru rabt, peace to the maré Sarri.” 
Meissner in MVAG., 1904, pp. 181-84, and Johnston, J.4OS. 
XXV, pp. 79 sqq., discuss H. 870, 82-5—-22, 107. That letter, as 
they recognize, shows that Samassumukin, not ASsurbanipal, was 
the eldest living son of Esarhaddon, it being agreed that these 
two princes are referred to. Yet SamasSumukin, we shall see, 
was not mar-Sarru rabai. The seniority of Samassumukin 
is also suggested by a boundary-stone inscription dating from 
the reign of Sama&sumukin, published by Winckler, AOF. I, 
pp- 498 sqq. The broken beginning speaks of maru réStu Sa 
Agur-ab-iddin Sarru dannu Sar kisSati Sar ™®* ASStr, 
Sar kal Sarrani Sakkanak TIN. TIR.ki Sar 1a Sandan abt 
talimu 8a ASur-bani-apli Sar kissati Sar ™**ASsSair. The 
name of Samassumukin as the king referred to occurs two or 
three times in the body of the inscription. With the seniority of 
SamaSsumukin declared, we must probably regard talimu as 
signifying equality in rank instead of age. 


44 Nores on Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


The courtly letter above cited protests against a proposed 
division of authority. Some one speaks in behalf of the desig- 
nated prince of AS8sir against the proposal to place the eldest son 
upon the throne of Babylon. The style suggests Adadsum- 
usur; and this may find support in H. 594, K. 1118 (not quite 
understood, I think, by Behrens, ABB., p. 25). This latter let- 
ter shows that the king is angry at some reported remark of the 
old courtier upon the proposed relative standing of the mar- 
Sarru and SamaSsumukin, and orders a ban upon him. This 
letter settles, it would seem, which son of Esarhaddon was sole 
mar-Sarru for a time, as suggested by the first paragraph of 
this discussion. It was not SamasSumukin, as Winckler con- 
jectures, AOF’. I, 415 sqq., quoted by Johnston, JAOS., 1904, 
p. 81, where he adds, “If Samaisumukin were the eldest son of 
Esarhaddon, he would be the natural heir to the throne.” But 
letters like H. 24, H. 489, H. 594, H. 740, mention one son of 
Esarhaddon as a mar-Sarru, and another as merely Samassu- 
mukin. The conjectures mentioned then fall to the ground. 
Yet Winckler may be correct in connecting the disturbances in 
the last year of Esarhaddon’s reign with the arrangement for the 
succession. That Samasumukin’s dignity was an afterthought, 
growing out of the Babylonian problem, seems then to be the 
fact. That ASsurbanipal was originally sole mar-Sarru has 
several other supports. In I.R., IV, 85, we have a tablet stating 
that a certain palace was built kirib *!" Tarbisi ana masab 
Agurbanipal mar-Sarru Sa bit-ridaiti. Remembering that 
the great assembly in the month Iyyar, proclaiming the co- 
ordinate princes, was held upon the eve of Esarhaddon’s last 
expedition to Egypt, and that he died upon the road, it is 
extremely improbable that any palaces were planned or built in 
that brief interim. Had such been built, at that late period of 
his reign, Assyrian royal idiosyncrasies would lead us to expect 
ASurbanipal’s claiming to be the builder. This palace for the 
“crown prince” must belong to an earlier period, when SamasSum- 
ukin was not yet designated as a mar-Sarru. ASurbanipal is 
also called ‘‘the son of my heart,” or favorite son, in this inscrip- 
tion. 

But how shall we understand Knudtzon 107, in which Esar- 
haddon inquires concerning the installation of Siniddinapal as 
crown prince? As we do not hear of him elsewhere, Knudtzon’s 


THE EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 45 


supposition is most plausible, that Siniddinapal, Hsarhaddon’s 
first choice for successor, soon died, and the honor was then 
bestowed upon ASurbanipal. This may be supported by the fact 
that in Kn. 66, 67, Asurbanipal is merely ‘‘son of Esarhaddon 
king of Assyria;” in all other cases in which he is associated with 
Esarhaddon in these oracles, he is mar-Sarru Sa bit ridati. 
He did not have this honor from the very beginning. 

Comparing H. 594, K. 1118, H. 117, K. 999, H. 118, K. 1026, 
H. 656, 82—5—22, 168, and H. 34, K. 981, we find protests from 
Adadsumusur and his friends that he did not say what he has 
been charged with saying. Notice especially the third and fourth. 
We observe in these also an effective reconciliation, and assur- 
ances that AdadSumusur and Arad-Gula will officiate, will share 
in the kannu ceremony(?) (ka-an-ni a-bi-i8 ni-za-az), and 
that they will support the proposed regime. (Does this word 
kannu in these letters mean “installation” or ‘‘ordination,” from 
which “jurisdiction” or ‘“‘province,” an apparent meaning in 
other passages, may well be derivative? Compare H. 409, Rm. 
2, 2, obv. 10: ?™*! bél pabati 38a ka-ni ™4* U-ka-a-a: ké- 
pani 8a ka-ni, Knudtzon 107, obv. 4: képani Sa ka-an-ni, 
Kn. 109, obv. 7: rab alani sa ka-ni, H. 252, K. 525, obv. 8: 
and a letter of Istarsuméres on this subject, H. 670, K. 12, rev. 7, 
a-na ka-an-ni lu Se-si-u: rev. 9, ki-ma Sarri a-na ka- 
an-ni il-tu-si. Perhaps derivative from kana, “reed.” So 
SAS., Abp., III, p. 30. In various bas-reliefs we may see the 
king handing a reed to some one as token of a commission. )’ 

The 22d of Tisrit may have been a day by which the nobles 
should recognize the proposed arrangements for the succession. 
References to im XXII *#™u f&imu anniu recur in the letters 
cited above. In H. 740, 83-1-18, 26 Ikkaru greets the king; upon 
the reverse he adds a hearty greeting to SamaSSumukin, and also 
refers to that 22d day. In H. 34, K. 981, Istarsuméres, a close 
friend of AdadSumusur, says, ‘“‘My lord the king, from his heart 
he did not speak about it.” It may be that he refers to the above- 
mentioned charge against his friend. 

With ASurbanipal already generally known as a mar-Sarru 
and SamasSumukin announced for the like dignity, we have some 
interesting correspondence, possibly upon the solemn prepara- 
tions for the great occasion. H. 24, K. 626 gives directions for 


1See also Johns, ADD. II, p. 124, and further discussion in connection with the Sal8u, 


46 Notes oN Some OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


certain ceremonies for averting evil from the mar-Sarru and 
SamasSumukin, it would seem; while H. 23, K. 602 tells of 
prayers and ceremonies carefully performed, of purifications and 
propitiations already complete, on behalf of the mar-sSarru, and 
the mar-Sarru of Babylon. SamaSSumukin has now his new 
title, it appears. Marduksakinsum, the author of these two 
letters, also mentions the mar-Sarru, Arad-Gula, NabaiSumiddin, 
Nabtiimudiati, and the observances for the month Ab, in H. 17, 
K. 472, H. 18, K. 490. These all are mentioned in the preced- 
ing letters cited, and these two fragments may then deal with the 
same matters. Possibly H. 25, K. 639 does also. 

Other letters refer to the status of the two brothers. In H. 
434, Bu. 89-4-26, 163, AsSurukin salutes the king, the mar-Sarru 
of Asstir, and the mar-Sarru of Babylon. In rey. 22 he speaks 
of some one suspected of conspiracy, brought before the mar- 
Sarru for examination. The mar-Sarru evidently had some 
executive pre-eminence over the mar-Sarru of Babylon. The 
broken H. 439, K. 432, 7ff. greets Samassumukin, and refers to 
ceremonies performed before Ninkigal for the mar-Sarru, but 
not as yet for SamaSsumukin. In H. 654, 82-5-22, 103 Adad- 
Sumusur addresses the mar-Sarru rabid, calling him also mar- 
Sar kiSSat matati, and mar-Sar matati three times. The 
old courtier certainly suggests that there is now more than one 
mar-Sarru, as contrasted with the state of affairs at the time he 
wrote H. 3 and H. 365; he is explicit as to the one now addressed. 
Even more interesting is his misplaced adjective, added as an 
afterthought in H. 10, K. 641: .... a-na mar-Sar ™**As- 
Sur rabé béli’a. One would suppose the necessity for the dis- 
tinction was new. In H. 658, 83-1-18, 81, he writes concerning 
the sickness of AStr-etil-Samé-irsiti-uballitsu, and mentions also 
the mar-Sarru Sa kutalli—a variation of m@r-Sarru Sa 
bit-ridtiti. The sick prince, like ASurmukinpalé’a, previously 
mentioned, has no title, though a son of the king. The titled 
prince, we have already seen, is ASurbanipal, in the opinion of 
Adadsumusur. 

We may refer here to letters like HH. 33, 202, 384, 386, con- 
cerning the taking of the adé by officials and various towns. As 
they come to some extent from this same group of writers, and as 
Asurbanipal declares solemn oaths were taken before his father’s 
death, there is ground for believing that these letters may be con- 


Tuer EsSARHADDON SUCCESSION 47 


nected with the great event discussed. The data so far presented 
give a very consistent story of the plan for the succession. The 
months named and the events, compel us to place the publication 
of the king’s later intentions at least as early as the year preced- 
ing the great assembly in the month Iyyar. We evidently have 
not a complete statement from ASurbanipal as to the object of 
that assembly. The nobles killed with the sword in the last 
year of Esarhaddon may have been those who refused to recog- 
nize the new honors of Sama3sumukin. 

That the mention of a mar-Sarru and a mar-Sarru of 
Babylon is not intended to include all Esarhaddon’s family we 
know from the mention of untitled members, already noticed. 
We may add Arad-Nabit’s letter, H. 113, K. 501, which on the 
reverse speaks of °niké Sa ASurbani-apli mar-Sarru rabu- 
u, ‘Sa SamaSSumukin mar-Sar Babili ‘Sa Séri’a-éterat 
*sa ASur-mukin-palé-ia, “8a Sar-Samé-irsiti-uballitsu. 
Samasmitiballit is not mentioned, unless we could prove that 
the last prince in the letter is he. This I think improbable, but the 
name of the last prince is certainly the same as ASur-etil-Samé- 
irsiti-uballitsu, already mentioned. The view of Johns, ABLCL., 
p. 375, that the list gives the order of seniority in Esarhaddon’s 
family cannot be maintained. We have seen that ASurbanipal, 
called in this letter the mar-Sarru raba, was not the eldest son. 
Winckler’s theory, AOF. II, p. 183, that the last prince in this 
letter is Esarhaddon himself, is very curious. It would require 
us to believe that the punctilious Arad-Naba disregarded here in 
a letter to the king the precedence due to him; the first law of 
official etiquette. Quite as curious is his theory that ASur-etil- 
ilani-ukinni in H. 870 is also Esarhaddon. A princess named 
Séra’a-éterat occurs in each; that is the only proof offered. He 
does not try to prove the two princesses to be one and the same 
save by the other assumption. 

Perhaps the problem of precedence occurred to Winckler, and 
produced his theory of a semi-abdication on the part of Esar- 
haddon, wherein the king retained the title Sar-kiS8sati and 
made Asurbanipal Sar ASsair. Neither bears such title in the 
letters just discussed; and we have seen that the varied official 
correspondence does not call ASurbanipal the Sar ASSar after 
the great ceremony, but the mar-Sarru rabti. We would also 
have Séra’a-éterat and ASur-mukin-palé-ia taking precedence of 


48 Notes on SomE OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


Winckler’s theoretical Sar ki8Sati in the letter that troubles 
him. Winckler, AOF. II, p. 186, bases his theory upon a letter 
of Nabinadinsum, H, 54, K, 476, to the marat-Sarri, in which 
the king is called Sar ki88ati béli’a. No proof is offered that 
the letter is written to Esarhaddon’s daughter. Even if it were, 
Winckler would have to prove that it was written in the last 
weeks of Esarhaddon’s reign, and his theory would still be 
unestablished. For we should ask if the usage of the term Sar 
kis8ati in the letters supports the limited construction Winckler 
would here put upon it. 

The TIK.EN.NA in H. 542, K. 114 addresses Sargon as 
Sar kissati béli’a. Would Winckler say Sargon was no longer 
king of Assfir? Asurbanipal is addressed as Sar matati in H. 
266, K. 78, and H. 269, K. 528, though he had a colleague at 
Babylon. Apla, writing to the queen mother, in H. 324, K. 523, 
calls the king Sar matati. Bélibni prefers bél Sarrani béli’a. 
Apla, in H. 326, K. 1249, uses both Sar kisSati and sar 
matati; evidently of Esarhaddon. Kudurru prefers Sar matati. 
AdadsSumusur varies; he uses Sarru bél matati in H. 5, K. 
583. Nabi-ukin, H. 750, 83-1-18 280, says ana Sar Sarrani. 
Marduk, H. 808, Bu., 91—5—9, 113, uses Sar matati and bél Sar- 
rani. These are amply illustrative. A subject must recognize 
the king as a king, and as his lord; additional epitheta ornantia 
aim at broad compliment, not at precision. The semi-abdication 
of Esarhaddon and a territorial division of authority is not sup- 
ported by the single Sar ki8Sati from which Winckler derives it. 

Nor can we accept Winckler’s theory that abu rab was used 
to designate a brother whom the king had chosen as his successor. 
In AOF. II, p. 185, he advances such a theory with regard to 
the two sons of Esarhaddon, mentioned in L’ 12, 13, and refers 
to K. 581; but K. 581 as published by Harper, 331, contains no 
reference to the matter. ASurbanipal’s statement in L’ 12, 13, is 
that he “shaved” (see TU.biti excursus, p. 45) ASur-etil-Samé- 
irsiti-uballit-su as the urigallu of Sin at Harran, ASur-mukin- 
palé-ia as urigallu at (Asur?) ef. Sargon cyl. 5, 6, and HWB., 
p- 129, and ‘‘The Semitic City of Refuge,” Monist, October, 1905. 
Johns ABLCL., p. 366, places him at Harran, perhaps a confusion 
with his brother; he does not give the document for the statement. 
These two princes, frequently named in the letters, are not 
accorded any title in them. Winckler, for the sake of variation, 


THE EsSARHADDON SUCCESSION 49 


abandons urigallu in the cited passage (cf. Briinnow 6452, 
and HWB.) for abu raba, though the two princes are respec- 
tively called abu kuddinnu, and abu sibru in the same lines. 
Samassumukin applies the same terms to them (cf. Lehmann, 
Samassumukin p. 30). H. 370, 81-2-4, 49, may refer to this 
elevation to the rank of “Great Protector.’ There does not 
seem to me any real support for the theory that an abu rabt 
might be an alternative for a mar-Sarru raba. To Winckler’s 
interpretation is the further objection that it makes ASurbanipal 
plan a divided authority to succeed himself after he had himself 
objected to such a measure. Moreover, we would conclude there 
was despair of direct succession, and that this record was late in 
the reign of ASurbanipal. The evidence does not support either 
conclusion. 

The actual order of events in bringing Samas8umukin to regal 
dignity and possible co-equality with ASurbanipal seems fairly 
established as against theories hitherto offered (also contra Hom- 
mel, DB.,p. 169). What were the intentions of Esarhaddon with 
regard to the exact extent of the authority.of each?” Some light 
may be gained by further consideration of the requirements of 
oriental diplomatic etiquette. 

Taking up the Tel-el-Amarna letters in the British Museum, 
as published by Bezold, we find No. 1 beginning ‘‘To Kallimma- 
Sin, king of Karadunias, my brother, thus saith Amenophis, the 
great King, king of Egypt, thy brother.” No. 2 begins, ‘‘To 
Nibmuaria, king of Egypt... . thus saith Burraburias, king 
of Karadunias, thy brother.” Nos. 5, 6, 7, ‘To the king of 
Egypt, his brother, thus says the king of AlaSiya, his brother.” 
No. 8 is especially to the point: ‘To Nimmuaria, the great king, 
king of Egypt, my brother, my son-in-law, who loveth me, whom 
I love, thus saith Tusratta, the great king, thy father-in-law, who 
loveth thee, the king of Mitanni, thy brother.’’ Nos. 9, 10, 11, 
show like forms of address. 

Delattre, PSBA., 1891, 539 ff., treats some of the Berlin col- 
lection of Tel-el-Amarna letters, as published by Winckler. In 

2Tiele, Bab. Assyr. Gesch., pp. 351, 369, 371, makes ASurbanipal a viceroy, about 671 B.C 
Hommel, Gesch. Bab. und Assyr., p. 694, takes the same view, but dates the event 669 B. C, 
E. Meyer, Geschichte Alterthums, I, p. 447, makes SamaSSumukin and ASurbanipal to be 
crowned almost simultaneously, both owing their elevation to their father. Lehmann, 
Samassumukin, pp. 33, sqq., holds a similar view; cf. Maspero, Passing of Empires, p. 381. 


Knudtzon, Gebete an den Sonnen-Gott, p. 220, does not believe Esarhaddon ever thought of 
setting ASurbanipal aside for Samassumukin. 


50 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


No. 18, the king of the Hittites addresses the king of Egypt six 
times as “my brother.” In No. 32, TuSratta, king of Mitanni, 
uses the term ‘“‘my brother” thirty-two times of the king of 
Egypt. The king of Alasiya uses the appellation twenty-five 
times of the king of Egypt. The Aziru letters are published by 
Delattre, PSBA., 1891, pp. 215 ff. Letter No. 11 begins “ana 
Dadu béli’a abi’a *umma Aziru maruka arduka ‘ana Sépi 
abi’a amkut.’’ So also No. 38. Compare in O. T., Gen. 32, 
17, 18; 33, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14; 1 Kings, 9,13; 2 Kings 16,7. Par- 
ticularly interesting is the way in which the king of Israel was 
tricked out of the fruits of his victory over Syria by the quick- 
witted Syrians’ claiming the acknowledgment of their king as a 
“brother” (1 Kings 20, 32 ff.) instead of a ‘‘servant,” or “son.” 
So also two suppliants in LJH. 48 speak of the governor as ‘‘our 
father.” 

The examples show that diplomatic correspondence required 
the acknowledgment of equality or independence where it existed. 
Equal precision was to be used in defining the reverse relations. 
‘‘Brother” or “sister,’’ in such correspondence, implies something 
like “peer.” Where family relationships existed, these were 
specified; the relative rank was still carefully defined, as in 
the Tusratta letters. ‘‘Father” in such addresses might mean 
acknowledgment of subjection; it might be mere compliment, as 
in Joash’s address to the dying Elisha.’ 

Looking now to Assyria, we observe the same usage. Hsar- 
haddon (G. Smith, p. 24) writes to Urtaku, king of Elam: “Peace 
be to Urtaku, king of Elam, my brother.” K. 359 (SAS., Abp., 
II, p. 51) begins, ‘“‘Letter of Ummanaldas, king of Elam, to 
Asgurbanipal, king of AS8ir. Peace be to my brother.” 

Considering family relationships, we may remember that 
Sennacherib was mar-Sarru rabi; yet when conducting impor- 
tant operations in the North, in his letters to the king his father 
he emphasizes his own inferior rank, beginning always: “To the 
king, my lord, thy servant Sennacherib.” See HH. 196-199; 
568. SamaSmitiballit, we have seen, was a younger son of 
Esarhaddon. His letters to the king are then to his father or 
his brother. We have two, H. 341, 82-5-22, 174; H. 766, 
K. 475; each beginning, “To the king, my lord, thy servant, 


3This fact invalidates the theory of Tiele and Lehmann that ASurbanipal might have 
been king of ASSar in the lifetime of Esarhaddon. It is based upon the fragmentary K. 2641, 
in which a king of ASSQr addresses the king of Babylon as “‘ my father.” See Lehmann, 
Samassumuktn, p. 36; Tiele, pp. 330, 352, 370. 


THE EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 51 


Samasmitiballit. Peace to the king, my lord.” The require- 
ments of etiquette in Assyria seem the same as those noted else- 
where. One should not address the king as “my brother’’ unless 
he were the peer of the king. 

We have letters from SamaSsumukin. In H. 426, 80-7-19, 
17; he calls the king “my brother” six times; he does not call 
him “my lord.” He himself is king of Babylon at the time. 
The broken H. 809, K. 5483, is from him; the king is twice 
ealled “my brother.” The boundary stone already cited AOF,, I, 
498 sqq., makes Sama3Sumukin speak of ASurbanipal as abu 
talimu, “brother of equal rank.” It seems clear that he did 
not recognize the over-lordship of ASurbanipal in these docu- 
ments. How then shall we understand his three short letters, 
HH. 534-536, beginning: “To the king, my lord, thy servant, 
Sama3sumukin”? It is fair to consider them addressed to 
Esarhaddon. 

Does ASurbanipal recognize the equal rank of Sama3Sumukin ? 
We know he calls the latter “abu talimu.’’ We have no letters 
from him to SamaSsumukinin the HABL. vols. H. 870, 82-5-22, 
107, already mentioned, Johnston considers inspired by him. 
In view of the unwillingness to concede division of authority 
therein shown, any incidental concessions of fact should be 
accounted of much significance. His effort in several inscriptions 
to make himself the source of his brother’s authority must be 
qualified by such incidental concessions, and by the data given 
in the preceding pages. 

Johns, in ‘‘The Chronology of ASurbanipal’s Reign,” PSBA., 
1905, p. 94, favors the contention of ASurbanipal. ‘“If Esar- 
haddon had set his son upon the throne of Babylon, Samai- 
Sumukin must have reigned both in B. C. 669 and 648, and would 
thus have reigned 22 years. If Esarhaddon did not set him 
upon the throne, no one but ASurbanipal could doit. There was 
no organized native power to elect him.” 

The contention is not sound. The argument to exclude B. C. 
669 from Sama3sumukin’s reign would exclude it from ASurbani- 
pal’s also. Probably this should be conceded. The data already 
examined seem to show that Esarhaddon’s plans were for the 
simultaneous accession of his two sons after his own death. 
What organized native power could then put ASurbanipal on the 
throne ? 


52 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


Johns, ADD. 477, K. 448, has among the witnesses officers 
of the mar-Sarru and the mar-sar Babili. The document is 
dated in Nisan. If the general view be correct, that the great 
assembly in Iyyar consummated Esarhaddon’s arrangements for 
the succession; if this assembly be contemplated in the prepara- 
tions we have referred to in the letters, the above document must 
be dated in the following Nisan; for in the preceding one 
SamasSumukin would have been but a prospective mar-Sar 
Babili. Letters cited name ASsurbanipal as already a mar- 
Sarru, and greet Samassumukin by name only, seemingly pend- 
ing his elevation. It would seem, then, that in the Nisan fol- 
lowing Hsarhaddon’s death each prince may have been but a 
mar-Sarru of the empire, and that SamaSsumukin’s actual 
regal dignity must have begun simultaneously with that of his 
brother. 

Johns notices the proclamation, 83—1—18, 45, issued by Zakata, 
the mother of EHsarhaddon, Asurbanipal, Samassumukin, and 
Samaimitiballit. It declares ASurbanipal to be the rightful king 
of Assir. Is not Zakitu, possible queen regent, a ‘“‘native power” 
to be reckoned with? And where is the companion document? 
After the solemn declaration a few months before, would 
SamaSsumukin have joined in this proclamation unless another 
had simultaneously announced his own position? Again, why the 
emphatic appeal to religion, to ceremonies, oracles, and portents 
in the preparations of Hsarhaddon, when Asurbanipal had for some 
time previously been known as mar-Sarru? Clearly, ASurbani- 
pal’s statement about the great assembly in Iyyar is only a half 
truth, if viewed as coming from a historian of the times, but a 
whole truth, if ASurbanipal is only writing personal history; and 
that is what Assyrian kings really do. It would seem that we 
must believe that the same solemn oaths that bound the nobles to 
protect the mar-Sarrfitu of Asurbanipal, and afterward his 
kingship of Assir, bound them and him to similar obligations in 
the case of SamaSsumukin and the two younger brothers. Here 
is a force Johns does not fully recognize. ASurbanipal, in L’, 10, 
acknowledges that he was bound in this matter by an oath that 
might not be broken; in VR. III, 77, he also acknowledges his 
father’s command. Maspero (Passing of Empires, p. 381) recog- 
nizes the power of oaths and oracles. But for his statement that 
ASurbanipal proclaimed himself King of Assyria at the same time 


Tur EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 53 


that Samasumukin proclaimed himself King of Babylon no 
proof is given. 

Johns’ contention that Sama3Sumukin’s first regnal year could 
not be co-incident with ASurbanipal’s (so also Hommel, DB., 
p- 169) because Bél-Marduk was captive in Assyria, and the 
Babylonian king could not there take the hands of Bél, will not 
stand. Knudtzon, No. 149, specifically asks “Let Samassum- 
ukin take the hands of Bél’’ in AS3sar; the very thing Johns and 
Maspero (Passing of Empires, p. 381) think improbable. In 
citing this document both curiously overlook this precative. In 
the boundary stone already cited, AOF. I, 498, the return of Beél- 
Marduk is placed in the reign of SamaSSumukin. The writer of 
that document certainly thought the accession of the king ante- 
dated the return of Bél. The Babylonian Chronicle, IV, 35, 36, 
says, Sattu ré8 SamasSumukin ina arah Aara ‘"Bél u 
ilani Sa ™4tAkkadi ultu @!"ASSair adsinimma ina arab 
Aart aim XI **™ana Babili érubani. SamasSumukin in 
Stele S' and Cyl. L, 15-17, makes like statements. With these 
Babylonian claims compare ASurbanipal’s assertion in S*, 36-48, 
that the return of Bél occurred in his reign. In L’, II, 26-33, 
he places it in the very beginning of his reign. He claims Mar- 
duk returned at his tearful entreaty. Five lines of prayer to the 
god are followed by two lines concerning SamaSSumukin’s taking 
the hands of Bél; then follow 18 lines vividly portraying the tri- 
umphal procession to Babylon. The Assyrian records corroborate 
the Babylonian. The argument of Johns that Sama3sumukin’s 
reign must have commenced a year later than his brother’s does 
not seem established. The documents cited apparently indicate 
simultaneous accession of the brothers, the hands of Bél being 
taken in Assyria in accordance with Sama3sumukin’s entreaty to 
Sama& (see below). The brothers must have acted in concert in 
the matter of the return of Bél; each telling of his own connection 
with the matter, in the respective inscriptions, and each adding a 
reference to ahi’a talimi’a. 

Johns, in citing Knudtzon, No. 149, says: ‘“ASurbanipal, 
already king of Assyria,” in the month Nisan inquires if Sama3- 
Sumukin shall take the hands of Bél that year. Consequently, 
SamasSumukin could not have become king in the Iyyar in which 
his brother did. But ASurbanipal is not mentioned in this docu- 
ment! Neither is the reigning king of Assyria! The inquiry 


54 Notes oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


may have come from the same ‘“‘committee” that announced Asur- 
banipal as the legitimate successor in Assir. But if the usual 
forms of presenting an inquiry be a safe criterion, we should infer 
that this inquiry is from Sama3sumukin himself, if we agree that 
No. 147 is from Asurbanipal. Each is presented in the normal 
form: the third person. In Samassumukin’s supplication the 
verbs in the opening sentences are precative; lisbat, lillik; the 
following verbs are interrogative; will it be done? It should be 
noticed that not all of these “Gebete” are from the kings. In 
Kn. 148, 144, we hear of ASurbanipal as mar-Sarru Sa bit 
ridtiti; in other later ones he is Sar Assfir. Maspero (Passing 
of Empires, p. 381) also overlooks the form of the above- 
mentioned inquiry of Sama, assuming that it was from ASurbani- 
pal. His statement that the reply was not favorable is mere con- 
jecture; and the statement that Bél had to be sent to Babylon 
before Sama3Sumukin could take his hands disregards the above 
order of events as narrated by ASurbanipal. 

Adding the evidence of the building inscriptions, we find in 
L’ and S', Sama3sumukin boasts of the restoration of Hsagila and 
Ezida, and the re-establishment of the sacrifices. In S*, L?, ASur- 
banipal claims the credit. Each names his ahu talimu in his 
own inscriptions, and each invokes a curse upon him who shall 
erase the two names. The statements are in perfect harmony 
when we remember that an oriental king names the creditable 
actions in which he participated without stating precisely the 
part taken by others therein. The two brothers apparently begin 
their joint reign harmoniously as equals. 

The royal titles outside the RFHarper letters give a little 
light. SamaSSumukin, in S' and L®, and AOF’ I, 498, does not 
accord to his brother the exalted titles given in the same docu- 
ment to Esarhaddon. His own title indicates territorial juris- 
diction, as though he were sole authority in Sumer and Akkad. 
Asurbanipal, in S’, revels in all the old titles: Sarru raba, Sarru 
dannu, Sar kiSSati, Sar ASSar, Sar kibrat irbitti, sar 
Sarrani, rabti 14 Sanan. He rules from the lower sea to the 
upper sea, and has subdued all princes beneath his feet. In L’ 
is the same. But he has waged no campaign; the inscriptions 
belong to the very beginning of his reign, to the time of the 
return of Bél; compare the parallel L*, IV, I, ina imésuma. 
The extravagant exordium is merely his indulging in a little idio- 


THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION 55 


matic Assyrian upon the first occasion that offered, though riba 
14 Sanan might conflict with his brother’s claims. 

But years later, in the Rassam cylinder, we find him going 
back to mar-Sarru rabi 8a bit-riditi. Is there a sentiment 
in the empire against his assumption of old regal dignities? Has 
the title invented by Esarhaddon, and placed upon the palace at 
Tarbisi, come to have a peculiar force? While each brother was 
sarru of a territory, was each thought of as only a mar-Sarru of 
the empire? May we compare the Eastern and Western Cesars 
and Augusti of the twin-capitalled Roman Empire? In the course 
of the royal annals, ASurbanipal does not employ the old regal 
titles until the building appendix is reached (X, 57,58). K. 
2867 (SAS. Abp. II, I) uses the same phraseology. This and 
the Nebo and Bélit inscriptions, IT R, 66, celebrate the overthrow 
of Elam. The two latter call him only Sar ASSair. So do K. 
1523 and K. 2652; K. 2674 does so five times. In line 12 it has 
the boast Sar Hlamti. In 69 recur the old regal titles. The 
colophons of texts in his library usually read: “Sar kisSati Sar 
Asstir.” Perhaps we should not make much of this current 
abandonment of full old regal titles. As ‘‘Crown Prince of the 
Executive Mansion” he would like to have us think his brother 
merely his deputy; notice the phraseology in S*, 50-55, L’, 11-12, 
and L’. 

We have seen the brothers’ references to each other. How did 
the Babylonians regard them? Did they consider their king as 
their own, independent, or as one of two co-ordinate overlords ? 
In K. 233, and in H. 702, 812-4, 77* the Babylonians bring com- 
plaints before the king. The second letter shows the king is 
Samassumukin. The phraseology of direct address throughout, 
however, is ‘‘The kings our lords.” Clearly the one king before 
whom the complaint is laid is the local representative of two 
co-ordinate rulers, always joined in one phrase. 

With this Babylonian view contrast the Assyrian. The division 
was not universally acceptable to them; this must qualify our esti- 
mate of their expressions. Kudurru, governor of Erech, H. 754, 
K. 5457, reports to ASurbanipal. The king of Babylon is for him 
merely Samassumukin. Marduk, in H. 807, Bu. 91-5-9, 90, does 
likewise. H. 437, K. 168 does the same. We cannot argue from 
these data with any certainty. Assyrian officers would not be 


4 See “The Semitic City of Refuge” in The Monist, October, 1905. 


56 Notes ON SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


anxious to recognize a king of Babylon, and Asurbanipal, con- 
sidering himself the executive officer of the co-partnership, might 
not be inclined to rebuke such breaches of official etiquette, if 
breaches they were. But there does not seem to have been per- 
sonal bitterness between the brothers at first. The policy to 
which they were sworn was distasteful, but that was all. The 
numerous votive tablets concerning the conquest of Elam con- 
trast curiously with the reticence upon the subject of the over- 
throw of SamasSumukin. 

The qualifying phrase, bit-ridtiti, or bit-kutalli, may be 
noticed. Its meaning is not precisely determined. The great 
pre-Sargonid kings boast of their building operations, but the 
royal habitation is put before us as ‘‘a stately pleasure house.” 
Sterner necessities, arsenals and armories, are not emphasized. 
But Sennacherib, Taylor prism VI, 28 sqq., tells of rebuilding a 
great arsenal, or armory, an é6kal kutalli. As it was too small, 
he tore it down, and rebuilt it on a new site, ana SutéSair 
salmat kakkadé, the storing of war munitions, and ‘my royal 
abode.” 

Esarhaddon, Cyl. A, IV, 49 sqq., rebuilds this ékallu mabirte, 
emphasizing its use as an arsenal, VI, 46 sqq., and as a royal 
abode, V, 29. 

Asurbanipal calls the great structure built by Sennacherib a 
bit-ridaiti, VR. X, 51 sqq. It was built by Sennacherib as his 
royal abode; thus ASurbanipal corroborates his grandfather’s 
statement. In I, 27, we observe that Esarhaddon was born there; 
in X, 59, that ASurbanipal was also. The latter remodels the 
structure in his turn, calling it still bit-ridati and emphasizing 
its military aspects; in I, 34 he mentions his own military train- 
ing, acquired within its precincts. It is the markas Sarriti, in 
I, 24, ‘the bond of the empire’’—its very life. In L*, II, 4, bit- 
ridati is aSar milki u téme, ‘‘the place of consultation and 
news.” Two lines further, the kanni ceremony (?) took place 
within it. Compare the Rassam cylinder, I, 23, where it is bit- 
ridati, as against ékallu in the L* passage. 

All of the emphasis of the Sargonids is upon the administra- 
tive purposes of bit-ridaiti. Successive enlargements of this 
group of government buildings are to meet the administrative 
necessities. ‘‘Harem” and ‘government building” are equally 
plausible from the etymological standpoint. Choice between them 


THE EsARHADDON SUCCESSION 57 


should then depend upon the evidence as to the purpose of, or the 
ideas associated with, the structure. We may notice Sargonid 
usage also in Esarhaddon, B, II, 24: mat tamtim ana sibirtisa 
ridfit abisu uSadgil panussu. “Harem” is not possible 
here. We may question if Hsarhaddon’s great dedicatory feast or 
the solemn proclamation-assembly in Iyyar would be held in a 
harem. Further, Samassumukin was as much a son of Esarhad- 
don’s “harem” as ASurbanipal was; yet the title mar-Sarru 
rabta 8a bit-riditi, mar-Sarru 8a bit-riditi, or mar-Sarru 
3a kutalli, belongs only to the latter. We may suggest ‘‘ Execu- 
tive Mansion” as an approximate translation; and we can under- 
stand that, if Asurbanipal could not claim to be “‘king of all kings, 
king without a rival,” as Esarhaddon was, he would at least 
emphasize the fact that he was war-lord of the empire, control- 
ling the great central arsenal; that he was “Crown Prince of the 
Executive Mansion.’’® 

It appears, then, that mar-Sarru, or mar-Sarru rabia, meant 
for the Sargonids the designated successor, as contrasted with 
other sons of the king. With the later Sargonids, mar-Sarru 
8a bit ridaiti, or kutalli, distinguished the ruler at the north- 
ern capital from his confrére at the southern. Only Nineveh has 
a bit ridaiti. We have compared the two mar-Sarru titles to 
the Augustus and Cesar dignities of the later Roman empire ; 
and we have on record a dispute between two court ladies about 
precedence which might support the view that, so far as the entire 
empire was concerned, ASurbanipal was held to be legitimately 
only a mar-Sarru Sa bit ridtiti; that his later claim upon the 
old titles was regarded by some as usurpation, or disregard of his 
oath. For some discussion of this letter H. 308, K. 16190, see 
Johnston, JAOS., 1899, pp. 244 sqq. 

“Message of the Princess to ASur-Sarrat: Thou dost not 
properly address thy letter to me, nor dost thou mention thine 
own title. Will not people say, This lady is the peer of Séra’a- 
éterat, the Princess Royal, daughter of Asur-etil-ilani-ukinni, the 
great king, the mighty king, the universal king, the king of 
Assyria? And thou art only the daughter of the daughter-in- 
law of the wife of ASurbanipal, the Crown Prince of the Executive 
Mansion, son of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria.”’ 


5 Delitzsch connects kutallu with Hebrew bmp, Arabic hes Shall we understand 
it as referring to the concentration of military stores? Did the city Ku-ta-al-la*! 
in LIH. 47, derive its name from its being an arsenal city? 


58 Notes oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


Séra’a-éterat claims for herself the title she concedes ASur- 
banipal. Asur-etil-ilani we know was succeeded by his brother. 
Had he really designated his daughter as his successor? We 
may recall the prestige of Sammuramit, the Semiramis of the 
Greeks ; Esarhaddon’s appointment of Tabia, a lady brought up 
at his court, as ruler of an Arabian kingdom (cyl. A. III, 13 sqq.); 
and the frequent occurrence of Sakintu, or lady Saknu, in 
the contract literature. Compare also “the year when the king 
raised Nikis-midasu, the daughter of the king, to rulership over 
Marbasi” (Radau, HBH. 257; Scheil, Rec. Trav., XIX, 55). On 
EPH., p. 186, Radau translates a tablet of a princess “‘a glorious 
one,’’ who makes a votive offering of a mace for the welfare of 
her father. 

The term mar-Sarru occurs in two or three other places in 
the Sargonid letters. In H. 466, 8.51, we hear of mar-Sar ™** 
An-di-a-a. In H. 633, K. 1366, obv. 16, we have ardani 3a 
zinnisat ékal m&ar-Sarri. The former is irrelevant to our 
inquiry; the latter, in a badly broken letter, affords no infor- 
mation. 

What were the motives for Esarhaddon’s policy? It has been 
thought that he was predisposed in Babylon’s favor, or Samai- 
Sumukin’s, and that a modification of his first plans in their 
favor was forced at the last. So Winckler, AOF. I, p. 415. 
The data we have reviewed render this supposed order of events 
improbable; further, a disturbance powerful enough to force 
Samassumukin out of the destined kingship of AS8fir might well 
have forced him out of all authority whatsoever. We may revert 
to the tremendous religious influences brought to bear by Hsar- 
haddon. The problem of sacred asylum cities was a serious one 
for the Assyrian kings.° We know of their alternate revocation 
and restoration of sacred privileges; their consecration and con- 
fiscation of temple lands. We hear of Sargon, probably an 
usurper, coming to the front with a restoration of the sacred 
privileges of Harran and ASSar (cyl. 5 and 6), which had been 
set aside by Salmaneser IV. Babylon was but one item in a 
great problem ; and we must add to the elevation of Samassumukin 
to the kingship of Kardunias, ASurbanipal’s statement L’, 12, 13, 
that two other brothers were placed at the head of two great 
sacred cities. Probably we should consider this done at the 


6See article, ‘‘The Semitic City of Refuge,’’ The Monist, October, 1905. 


THE ESARHADDON SUCCESSION 59 


command of Esarhaddon, for the preceding statement about the 
oath exacted by Hsarhaddon that might not be broken fairly 
introduces the honors of all three brothers. We may recognize 
an effort to solve the conflict between the secular power and the 
surviving privileged cities by placing members of his family in 
the four great official positions, and binding all with solemn 
oaths. It was as futile as similar efforts made by Egyptian 
kings. 


THE KEPU. 


Maspero (Dawn of Civilization, p. 675) thinks this officer a 
mere temple official. Johns ABLCL., p. 213, expresses the same 
opinion. The data available render this untenable. A temple 
could have a képu, as in Johns ADD., No. 50, K.336, line 9; but 
in line 10 the tartan has a képu; in line 8 is a kepu of the new 
palace. In Nbk. 460 we have a képu of the city of Rabza. 
Such passages are numerous and show that the term képu 
expresses only the function of the officer, suggesting nothing as 
to the person or institution to which he was attached. 

He becomes especially important for us when he appears as a 
royal official in subject provinces, where interference with the 
religious institutions of the nation is improbable. In VR. I. 58 
and 110-11 Asurbanipal speaks of ki-e-pa-ni 8a ki-rib Mu- 
sur u-pa-ki-du abu ba-nu-u-a; in II, 32, of Sarrani 
pabate ki-pa-a-ni 8a ki-rib Mu-sur as-ku-nu. We can 
hardly think these important deputies were temple attendants of 
any kind. In Assyria the képu may often have been the chief 
official of a city.’ Asurbanipal, VR. VI, 83, also speaks of 
ki-pa-a-ni of cities of Elam. In 81-6—25, Nbk., 109, we have 
ki-i-pi Sa mat tamtim and a ki-i-pi 8a a-bu-ul-la-’a. 

Again, the képu is an important factor in political disturb- 
ances in Assyria and Babylonia. In H. 542, K. 114, the képani 
of Bit-Dakktiri are abroad on a raid, and the képu of the 
beleaguered Bab-Bitka appeals to Sargon for help, asking that 
the Saknu bring troops. We might infer that the képu is 
not himself in command of troops; that his functions are 
not military. 

The képu is not frequent in the RFHarper letters. In addi- 
tion to the case just cited, we may notice H. 437, K. 168, rv. 9. 
Order is being restored in Akkad; the Satammé and képani 

1Delitzsch, BAS. II, 36, reads EN.ER.MES as k6pani, not bél-alani, in H. 88, 
K. 507; S. A. Smith reads it hazAnate; (so also Delitzsch, AL. 1, No. 69; Briinnow 2826, 


These only show uncertainty as to the precise character of the officer known as ‘‘ the lord of 
a town’’). 


60 


Tue Képu 61 


are in much fear of the king. In H. 442, K. 548, the ki-ba-a- 
ni whom the king has appointed at A88ar have....8é6 nu-sa-hi, 
86 Si-ib-Se i-Sab-bu-u. This handling of royal grain is 
significant. In H. 524, K. 588, news from Naba-ukannik is 
given, “not as Nabai-ukannik wrote it, but as his ki-pa-nu 
wrote it.” In H. 214, K. 831, a képu is in charge of the city 
Hama; acting as a pabatu? In H. 95, K. 1151, the képu of 
Zibte with some other officials and fifty laborers (?) is asked for. 
A sgatammu, ki-e-pu, and a dupSarru are mentioned in a 
broken letter about some gold, H. 476, 83-1-18, 5. Some képu 
of Déri has called for 2000 soldiers (or workmen?) for halsu 
cities, in H. 868, 81-2-4, 119. Three or four broken passages 
yield no information, showing merely the title. In none do we 
hear of a képu in a private or unofficial relation. These 
various data do not permit us to rest with the theory of a mere 
temple official, nor can we maintain that the képu is always a 
government official. 

Johns is surely correct, in ADD. II, p. 85, in his discussion of 
the first eight lines of col. III, K. 4395. As the first is the 2™¢! 
ki-e-pu, the second the #™¢!TIL.GID-da, also known to be 
the képu, and the seventh the 2™¢1NI.GAB, usually read 
képu, he conjectures that the intervening four may represent 
phases of the képu’s functions. Yet with these hints he does 
not seem to have clearly comprehended them, conjecturing a 
rural magistrate as distinguished from an urban one. Magisterial 
functions are unproven by our data. Later in ABLCL., Johns 
conjectured a temple functionary. 

The seven titles referred to are, '@™*!ki-e-pu, *#™! TIL. 
Giada, *2™¢lrab irrisé, *°@°! rab balsu, °2™*! rab: birteé, 
‘amélrab imér u-rat, ‘@™¢INI.GAB. If these are develop- 
ments from the primitive function we should be interested in 
determining what that was. Johns’ theory of a rural magistrate 
will not explain it, nor harmonize with the occasional appearance 
of the képu in connection with a temple or as the agent of a 
private individual. 

The first ideogram above, ?™°! TIL.GID-da, is also written 
TIL-la GID-da, H. 542, K. 114, obv. 8; TI-la GID-da, 
MES, Str. Nbd. No. 637, 8, or TI-la MES, Str. Nbd. 102. 
In the salutations we meet the phrase imé TI-la GID-da or 
TIL-la GID-da, ‘days of long life; also GID-da tmé, 


62 Notes on SoME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


H. 736, K. 1030, obv.6. The #™¢! TIL-la G@ID-da would then 
appear to be ‘“‘the man who prolongs life.” Winckler, AOF. II, 
p. 12, collates K. 3500, K. 444, K. 10235. Esarhaddon is cursing 
the rebels of Egypt, Philistia, and Phoenicia. In lines 11, 12, 
““May thy life ... . and letters which I have sent thee for a living 
from the képu thou shalt not.... If the képu is not gracious, 
thou shalt see his face, thou shalt break into weeping, not by 
their means (shalt thou prevail?).” The fragment at least 
suggests that indigent persons might be recommended to the 
képu, or appeal to him for sustenance. 

The third title above is “chief of the farmers.” This idea 
connects well with the preceding one. Compare Gen. 47:14-26. 
The Hebrew tradition makes Joseph to be born under Babylo- 
nian law in the province of Harran, and to introduce into Egypt 
a land system whereby the tillable soil falls largely into the hands 
of the king, as in modern Turkey, and the hands of the priests. 
The system is based upon a distribution of fortified store cities. 
The bankrupt farmer secures cattle, seed, and provisions from the 
royal agents. The live stock is largely owned by the government. 
The historicity of the narrative, or the antiquity of the system in 
Egypt, does not here concern us. It suffices that such a system 
was known to the Hebrew, was considered due to a former 
Babylonian subject, and that Joseph’s function was ‘“‘to preserve 
life; Gen. 45:5; 47:25. Zaphnath-paaneah has sometimes been 
thought to be a corruption of some god’s name + “let there be 
life.” 

We may include in the comparison now the rab balsé,rab 
birté, and rab urate; they would be readily explicable from the 
preceding suggestions as developments of the képu. We may 
notice Nbk. 460; Nadinu says, ‘‘My lord, thou knowest that for 
seeds to the képu of Rabza I sent, and money for the seeds I 
gave him.” The képu of Hararate sends a supply of domestic 
animals to Sennacherib, Taylor Prism, I, 52sqq. How impor- 
tant these distributed store cities would be, in peace and in war, 
needs no minute discussion. They were at all times the life of 
pauperized masses; and necessarily strong cities as well as store 
cities, cf. Exod. 1:11. The overseer of such was not necessarily 
magistrate or military officer. But he was required to be a capable 
man of business, and a methodical accountant. We have already 
noticed the képu’s connection with the balsu, and a requisition 


THe Képu 63 


for workmen for such cities, in H. 868. The famous Nabi-bél- 
Sumate is a képu in Taylor Prism I, 52, and is képu of an 
alu birat in H. 88, K. 507. We may add that the salutations in 
H. 247, K. 1027, suggest that an *!"birat was not identical 
with “garrison city,” repetition not being the rule in salutations. 
Compare Br. 1562: bi-ra-ti—ki-ru-u, “grove, orchard.” 

Various cuneiform inscriptions speak of such stores, or store 
cities. Hammurabi, Prologue III, 18 sqq., extends the tillable 
land of Dilbat, and heaps up stores of grain for Uras. Similar 
corn stores are mentioned by Gudea. Sargon, Cyl, 37-42, men- 
tions his similar efforts. His uniform prices, we may be sure, 
could not be maintained unless the government itself were in the 
market, with ample granaries. ‘The king’s price’’ appears also 
in the Code of Hammurabi, § 51. 

Joseph’s system would not only make him ‘‘the chief farmer” 
of Egypt, but also chief of the royal stud and herds, and hence 
the employment of his brothers as subagents. So, in the titles dis- 
cussed, a rab urate would be a logical development of an expand- 
ing system; we find him immediately after the rab birté. 
Nabéisumiddin in the RFHarper letters is the chief of the 
king’s stud, reporting regularly arrivals of horses, detailing 
variety, condition, training, etc. In H. 557, K. 893, some one 
complains of him for having exacted from the servants of the 
king from the fields of the birté ali provisions in excess of the 
royal orders. Thus the rab urate and the képu seem connected 
by occasional references with the *!*halsé and *!"birate. In 
LIH. 56, 88, sab birti of acity are mentioned, in connection with 
grain to be furnished them. Add the letters of Hammurabi con- 
cerning his cattle (King, LJH.),and the royal herd accounts in 
the E. A. Hoffman collection (Radau, HBH.); compare Mesha, 
king of Moab “‘a sheepmaster.” In Camb. 194, the 2™¢!TIL.la 
GID.da of Ebabbara, is the proper person to receive 200 geese 
for the temple. It seems that he lets out 50 ‘‘mother geese,” 
requiring a return of 200 geese within the year. For the seizure 
of choice animals by royal agents, compare Neb. I, col. I, 51 sqq.; 
contrast 1 Sam. 8:15-17; 12:3. 

That such agents were equally important in the management 
of temple property, or that of individuals, is apparent at sight. 
The temple stores are well described by Johns, ABLCL., 211 sqq. 
In 82-74, 13, we have a single page of a képu’s account book. 


64 Notes oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


Pinches (BOR. II, 143) thought it a list of “gifts to a house 
of God.” Its meaning is clearer today. Of 765 measures of 
grain borrowed, only 150 were returned directly to the képu; the 
rest was delivered at his order to various other parties. In H. 
516, 81-27, 31, is the only passage in the RFHarper letters 
connecting a képu with temples: ‘“‘Naba-ahé-iddin the képu of 
Esagila, I have put in charge of the revenues of all the temples 
round about Babylon.” Clearly he is not the servitor of some 
god, but a capable business manager, handling temple magazines 
and lands as royal ones were handled. 

Taxes being largely paid in kind, we can understand the 
necessity of Assyrian képani in Egypt, not as tax collectors, but 
as guardians of the store system upon which the farmer’s ability to 
pay taxes depended. The képu in the land of Elam was probably 
called a Sarnuppu; see H. 281, K. 13.2 Naba-bél-sumate, once 
a képu in Babylonia, is in Elam dealing with a similar custodian 
of stores. 

1 Kings 4:26-28; 9:15-19; 10:26; 1 Chron. 27: 25-31; 
2 Chron. 9: 5-12 tell of similar developments in Israel, probably 
adopted from the Canaanites. Whether or not they existed in 
Canaan before the domination of Babylonia, about 2100 B. C., is 
yet to be determined. Vast subterranean storehouses have been 
found at Tell Zakariyeh and elsewhere (PHFSt., 1899). Neh. 
6:1-13 and Is. 5:8 are worthy of note. The last passage may 
recall the contrast between the small amounts of money or 
produce mentioned in contracts of the first empire and the 
enormous quantities named in contracts of the Persian period. 
The small land owner may have become extinct in Babylonia. 
(Cf. 1 Sam. 8:14.) We do not yet knowthat the Israelite 
store cities were administered like those of Egypt or Babylonia. 
The numerous loans without interest from stores in Babylonia 
may have been to persons who were renting land from the lender. 
Joseph’s tenants of royal lands pay a rental of one-fifth the crop, 
which recalls a common rate of interest in Babylonia. That royal 
lands and temple lands were handled upon the same basis of 
valuation may be indicated by the frequent dedication of lands to 
the temples. The tenants apparently but changed landlords, pay- 
ing the temple what they formerly paid the king. Compare 
1 Sam. 8:15, 17 with Lev. 27:30; see Ezra 7: 20-27, and Eze- 


2Treated by Johnston, AEL., p. 139, and Van Gelderen, BAS., IV, 257. 


THe Képu 65 


kiel’s endowment scheme, 45. A comparison of Br. 6475, 6499, 
6513, shows the ideogram for zakf used to express ‘‘tithe,”’ or 
tenth. The “dedicated land”’ paid the same rate in Assyria that 
was customary in Israel. How old the system was that put the 
cultivation of the temple lands out of the hands of the priests 
themselves we do not know. The Code of Hammurabi, §§ 178, 
182, suggests that it may have existed then. In LIH., No. 38, a 
patesi is transferred from the service of one man to that of 
another; and the new employer is reminded that he is responsible 
for the management of the patesi’s field. Yet in 83-1-18, 264, 
Nbd. 934, a 8angié of Sippara loans temple corn. Probably this 
implies that the temple was temporarily without a business 
manager. Compare Neh. 13:10 sqq. 

An ideogram for képu not found in K. 4395 is AL-la 
GID-da, Brinnow, 5752; suggestive of TIL-la GID-da. 
But instead of ‘‘lengthening life” this would seem to indicate 
“to lengthen or foster agriculture.” For Briinnow, 5750, shows, 
GIS.AL=GIS.APIN; 5771, AL.DI=ereSu; 5758, 2™é! 
AL.AG.A is, rapiku. This word Delitzsch (HWB., 626) 
allies with sakaku, “to plough or harrow;” ef. CH., col. XIII, 
14, 29, and sikki, “a plough,” in modern Arabic in Syria. 
Brinnow, 5772, GIS.SA.AL.HAB is alluhappu or sakku 
$a 8é’im, ‘“‘grain sack.” The agricultural associations of AL 
are marked. This new ideogram “fosterer of agriculture (?)” 
recalls the rab irrisé in the K. 4395 series. 

This connection of the képu with the agricultural interests of 
the country in all its phases, and his importance when supervis- 
ing temple or government lands, suggests some possibilities rela- 
tive to early Sumerian kings. #™*! APIN, respectfully addressed 
in some RFHarper letters, might be a title for the king him- 
self. In the EAH. collection (Radau, HBH.), are very old 
accounts of royal agents. In some of these the king seems to be 
called “farmer.” PA.LUGAL.ENGAR in EAH. 34, Radau 
reads “overseer of royal shepherds” (HBH. p. 379); but 
ENGAR is usually read “farmer’’ and is in the adjective posi- 
tion, making one think of “officer of the farmer king.” Com- 
pare also EAH. 25; the oxen accounted for to the farmer king 
are specifically “‘plough oxen.”” Such ‘‘Farmer king”’ as title 
may be compared with the Hindoo Gai-kwar or ‘“‘Cowherd” of 
Baroda. Notice also Brimnow 3819-21; *™°! AB may be either 


66  NotTeEs oN SOME OFFICIALS OF THE SARGONID PERIOD 


“farmer, prince, or elder;” suggesting a time when princes 
were farmers. Those believing the Sumerians to be Mongols 
may recall that the Chinese Emperor, the “Son of Heaven” still 
plows at an annual agricultural ceremony. Again, UR-Ningir- 
su (Arad-Ninib?) name of an early king, is simply irrisu or 
ikkaru, Br. 11267. Literally it is “servant of Ningirsu,” who 
is Ninib, Br. 10996, the NIN.APIN, Br. 11007, or DINGIR. 
APIN, Br. 1020, or “lord of dates,” Br. 767. Radau (#BH. 
23) quotes Bur-Sin, the SIB.SAG or “chief shepherd” of 
Nippur, and ENGAR.LIG.GA of Ur; “mighty farmer” 
instead of Radau’s ‘‘ powerful shepherd” seems natural. Invo- 
cations of Nisaba, the ‘“‘harvest-goddess,” by the early Baby- 
lonian rulers, are to be considered. Against such Sumerian ideas 
set the Semitic preference for “faithful shepherd,” familiar in 
royal inscriptions from Hammurabi onward. Yet the older view 
does not wholly disappear: Babylonian kings boast the title of 
“cultivator of the sacred tree;” Nebuchadnezzar II. calls himself 
“Farmer of Babylon.” Hence *™¢! APIN might be a royal 
title in some RFHarper letters. In the collision of agriculturists 
of the river valleys (see TIK.EN-na) and Semitic shepherds of 
the highlands, it has been suggested that we might find a basis 
for legends like that of Cain and Abel. 

These accounts of royal plough cattle, of temple stores, and 
granaries of the gods, let us understand that a képu would be 
needed by every large landholder, sacred or secular. Four sec- 
tions of the Code of Hammurabi, 253-56, deal with this system 
of farming. The data above concerning AL and the képu 
suggest “‘means of cultivation” as the meaning of the ideogram 
AL.KAK.A (eréS8u+epésu). Such means our various cita- 
tions have shown to be cattle, seed, and sustenance while raising 
a crop. “Implements,” as Johns translates, is too restricted. 
Yet tools were sometimes supplied. In 82—9-18, 116, Str. Cyr. 
26, a wealthy contractor, Sula, leases 60 gur of land from the 
ki-i-pi of Ebabbara, and is furnished with 12 oxen, 8 irri8é, or 
cultivators, 3 iron ploughshares, 4 hoes, and 5 appata of 
corn for seed, for support of the irrisé, and for provender 
for the cattle. The renter guarantees the temple 300 gur 
of corn. Tools probably came from the 8utummu, or “‘store- 
house”” of the temple, supervised by the Satammu. Ob- 
serve the Sa-tam bit unati, or ‘‘keeper of the tool house,” 


THE Kepu 67 


in Boundary Stone 103, Col. IV, 9. This assistant of the képu 
and TU.biti frequently occurs; notice the ?™°'S4-tam ?#™¢ 
TU.biti °Marduk in V. A. 451, KB. IV, p. 152 SA. 
GAL in the sections of the Code is, as Johns translates, “ prov- 
ender” (Br. 8051, ukullu; see HWB.), rather than “growing 
plants” (RFHarper). Compare K. 2867,27; ukulti alpé séni. 
In EAH. 1 (£BH., p. 323), we have “10 gur grain of the 
king for one (?) gur copper, as provender for the cattle.” (Cf. 
II R. 39, 54, ce. d.) In EAH. 5 (EBH. 324) we again have 
ukullu as food. The four sections of the Code are valuable as 
showing the indigence of the man who was dependent upon the 
képu system of farming. Men financially responsible, §§ 42- 
65, make compensation or restitution for their delinquencies. In 
the képu system the Code apparently assumes that the delin- 
quent has nothing wherewith to repay, and punishes him, for a 
minor offense, by mutilation; for total delinquency he is torn to 
pieces by oxen (Johns, DB. V, 607). Such punishment may 
indicate that those dependent upon the képu may have belonged 
largely to the politically inferior muSkénu class. We have 
therein some suggestion as to the hard lot of the man who should, 
according to Esarhaddon’s wish, find the képu ina bad humor. 

No English word seems to me to exactly express the meaning 
of the word képu. As the agent of private parties he is nearly 
the “factor” of the English landholder; but as supervisor of 
government stores or temple revenues he has not his equivalent 
in western civilization though remotely suggesting the Indian 
agent of the American Indian reservations. I prefer to leave the 
term untranslated. 

The ideogram NI.GAB is often translated “‘porter.”” As a 
name for the képu, it may go back to the primitive custodian 
or “doorkeeper” of communal granaries. A Nabia-bél-Sumate is 
a NI.GAB in Johns’ ADD. 9, line 14. A rab NI.GAB.MES 
occurs in ADD. No. 150, line 6. 


VITA. 


I was born in Cooper County, Missouri, on the twenty-first of 
November, 1864, the oldest son of Rev. William C. Godbey, a 
minister of the Methodist-Episcopal Church, South. My prepara- 
tory and classical training was received under home instruction, 
while I acted as tutor for my younger brothers. I entered Mor- 
risville Institute in September, 1879, receiving the degree of 
A.M. from that institution in June, 1883. During the succeed- 
ing nineteen years I was constantly employed in teaching, journal- 
ism, and pastoral work, my leisure being occupied with historical 
and linguistic studies, and the preparation of some volumes of a 
popular character. Having given special attention to Semitic 
studies, I entered the University of Chicago in the summer of 
1902, and was appointed Fellow in Semitics. This rank I held 
three years, receiving the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 
June, 1905. 

While a student at the University I attended the courses of 
President William R. Harper, and Professors Robert F. Harper, 
Tra M. Price, H. L. Willett, Shailer Mathews, J. R. Jewett, and 
the late George S. Goodspeed. To all of these, but pre-eminently 
to the first, my thanks are due, and my indebtedness is hereby 
gratefully acknowledged. However, for the results of this inves- 
tigation and the views here expressed I alone am responsible. 


sauesgr] Aysueaiuf) 34NG 


g 
© 


